Ouch! So is Britain a fundamentalist state then?
25 members of the House of Lords are Bishops...
http://www.publications.parliament.u...o/bishops2.htm

There are ways of installing a theocracy which does not interfere too heavily with the democratic process - it doesn't have to be Iran MK II.

<font color = lightgreen>Yes, I do have a new hairdo...althought it is much more akin to Ewan McGregror in Down With Love. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] We don't owe anyone anything. If they want some help in putting together a democracy, then they can ask for it--in writing--and they can pay us for our valuable time.

*****

[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] A theocracy would be a very bad idea. Whichever faction of Islam gains power will, as history shows, viciously repress the other factions.

*****

True, pulling out quickly and completely would leave a vacuum that someone (some version of a warlord) will fill. No, the US isn't perfect, but I do sometimes get a little tired of people, both at home and abroad, bitching about everything we do or everything we don't do. I admit it--I'm human. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
What would probably help would be for us to put together a finalized timetable for scaling back forces over the next year--then stick to it--and establishing a provisional constitution/government until the Iraqi people choose their own government. As a nation, Iraq is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, so it will take time to normalize relations with the rest of the world.</font>

The alternative to giving the clerics a voice in government (when the majority want it) is already clear. Muqtada Sadr has already formed a Shadow Government and the Mehdi Army militia (a body of several thousand battle experienced men).

Deny him (and his ilk) any legal voice in government and you will plunge the country into civil war

Instead, why not give him (and people like him) a voice in government - but limit their power with the consitution.

For example, write into the constitution that clerics may occupy 25% of the seats - but:
1. They must be elected by universal suffrage on a regional basis
2. They may never hold the rank of minister, prime minister or president
3. no cleric may ever stand in an election for a seat reserved for secular MP's

Then, protect the constitution by stating that it can only be changed when a referendum is held and voter turnout is a minimum of 80% and 80% of those votes cast agree with the changes.

As others (far greater than I) have put it:
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." --Abraham Lincoln
"You cannot always CONTROL what goes on outside. But you can always CONTROL what goes on inside." --Wayne Dyer
"You cannot prevent the birds of sorrow from flying over your head, but you can prevent them from building nests in your hair." --Chinese Proverb

<font color = lightgreen>I agree; if the majority want a theocratic government then they will never be happy until they get it. Strangely enough, many in the Muslim world hold one particular view in common with the conservatively religious in this country--that government must walk hand-in-hand with religion. This idea, as you well know, is almost as old as civilization itself.
I must admit that if we don't find some way of forming a stable government in Iraq within the next six months or year, then as some critics suggest this will indeed turn into another Vietnam-like situation as all the various rebel groups form a leaderless resistance and wage guerilla warfare until we pull out. *sigh* I still support our decision to remove Hussein, but I don't think anyone in Washington thought past that point. :rolleyes: </font>

<font color = lightgreen>I laughed out loud when I read this one. Not because the quote is ridiculous--in fact it is quite true, but only because of my own private little joke (which I won't discuss further at this time [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] ).</font>

No actually you owe them. As occupying power, under the Geneva Convention, you are responsible for:

"Ensuring that the population has access to food and medical supplies. If these are not available in the country, the occupying power must bring them in. You also are responsible for maintaining health services and hygiene and, eventually, law enforcement, government services and tax collection."

Interesting article in today's Telegraph:

New Iraq 'well on way to becoming Islamic state'
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 29/10/2003)

The United States is failing in its mission to create a secular, overtly pro-Western Iraq, a leading adviser to the American administrator Paul Bremer said yesterday.

Instead, the new, democratic Iraq appears bound to be an Islamic state - with an official role for Islam, and Islamic law enshrined in its constitution.

That prospect is triggering alarm and opposition from the White House and the Pentagon, Noah Feldman, a leading American expert in Islamic law, told The Daily Telegraph.

Dr Feldman served as senior constitutional adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, working closely with Mr Bremer. Returning from Baghdad this summer, the New York University law professor now works as an unpaid adviser to the CPA, to the White House, and to different factions in the Iraqi Governing Council.

"The end constitutional product is very likely to make many people in the US government unhappy. It's not going to look the way people imagined it looking," said Dr Feldman.

"Any democratically elected Iraqi government is unlikely to be secular, and unlikely to be pro-Israel. And frankly, moderately unlikely to be pro-American."

While these predictions are spreading alarm inside the administration, Dr Feldman advocates dealing with Islamic democrats.

He argues that Islamic parties will rise anyway, and are most dangerous when forced underground by secular autocrats. Such views led Pentagon officials to accuse Dr Feldman of being "soft on Islam".

"When I tell them these things [Islam and Islamic law] are going to be in the constitution, people are very concerned about it. They want to know what can be done to avoid these things. There's still a hope that the country will be as secular as possible.

"But frankly nothing in Iraq is going to look the way people imagined. Maybe if people had taken that on board, they might have felt differently about the plan for an invasion."

The hawkish idealists who pushed hardest for regime change in Iraq saw the fall of Baghdad as the first step towards remaking the Middle East.

In their vision, Iraq would rise up as a democratic, secular, free market capitalist beacon to its neighbours - guided, at least initially, by such exiled leaders as Ahmad Chalabi, a secularist and Pentagon favourite.

In their plan, the country was to be turned into a federation of 18 or so provinces, preventing such powerful ethnic factions as the Kurds from setting up autonomous fiefdoms that might split the country apart and threaten the stability of an already volatile neighbourhood.

Yet the Kurds have made it plain that they expect to emerge with an autonomous Kurdish region, and will not support any constitution that would split their territory into mini-provinces, Dr Feldman reported. Though US allies, the Kurds retain 40,000 men under arms, and have declined US invitations to disband such militias.

Pentagon officials sent Dr Feldman to Baghdad for his knowledge of Islamic law. In many ways he was an unlikely candidate: he is a Democrat, Jewish and still only 32.

One senior administration official declared before the war that the first foreign policy of a democratic Iraq would be to recognise Israel.

"I don't know what he was smoking when he said that," said Dr Feldman. He argued that Iraqi-Israeli relations were off the radar, as Washington struggled simply to keep Iraq from slipping into disaster.

Oooooooo! I'm good, arn't I? ;)