[lil'babykitten]

Ahmad Chalabi is Iraqs new Oil Minister and one of the four deputy Prime Ministers.

He's also a convicted conman, wanted by Jordan. He's also a suspected Iranian spy. He was even sidelined by the US after he lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq.

His nephew happens to be in charge of the Finance Ministry in Iraq now too.

How long before allegations of corruption emerge?

Are we happy with the way "democracy" is developing in Iraq?

Relevant article: http://nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30dowd.html

[budster101]

I'm happy.

Wow you got that article from the New York Slimes? I'm not going to subscribe to read that trash rag.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Are we happy with the way "democracy" is developing in Iraq?[/url]

The question is: are Iraqis happy? They (and not Maureen . . . Dowd) elected the government.

[Millennium]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was this man not elected by the Iraqis themselves? If indeed he was, then I see no cause for complaint in his taking power: I dislike the man, but evidently a majority of Iraqis feel otherwise, and that is their prerogative, not mine.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The question is: are Iraqis happy? They (and not Maureen . . . Dowd) elected the government.

Interesting how you can shift from what's in your national interest to what's in Iraqs national interest as you so wish! Iraq was, if we re-state some of the rhetoric in the run up to the war, an imminent threat to the word's stability, an undemocratic oppressive regime, which denied its people 'freedom' etc etc. So if the new Iraq becomes a corrupt, undemocratic regime, this time you'll be OK with it because apparently they freely elected their leaders? Interesting.

But anyway, yes I do think (and I have been consistent on this) that ultimately we should be considering whether Iraqis are happy. Unfortunately it looks as though Iraq is fast becoming a region consumed with sectarian strife. The failure of Iraq's new 'leaders' to quickly fill the major positions of government have given the insurgency time to re-group and step up their attacks. Your very own Rumsfeld has said the daily attacks in Iraq have risen back up to the same level they were previously.

Chalabi was not elected, he's been appointed, and I doubt you'd find many Iraqis who thought his appointment to that particular post is a particularly good idea!

The Iraqi 'state' has a problem of legitimacy at the moment, regardless of whether it was elected freely or not. The result hasn't produced a contented population. The fact that a large segment of the population viewed the election itself as illegitimate and boycotted it doesn't paint a particularly optimistic picture for the future either.

[budster101]

Boycotted? You mean those who lived in the stronghold of the insurgents 'boycotted' on pain of death...
The rest of Iraqis were in line to vote, they even stepped over the dead bodies of recently blown up victims of insurgents to have the right to vote in the, as you put it, illegitimate election.

I say you are full of it, and by 'it' I mean partisan bs as usual.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Interesting how you can shift from what's in your national interest to what's in Iraqs national interest as you so wish! Iraq was, if we re-state some of the rhetoric in the run up to the war, an imminent threat to the word's stability, an undemocratic oppressive regime, which denied its people 'freedom' etc etc. So if the new Iraq becomes a corrupt, undemocratic regime, this time you'll be OK with it because apparently they freely elected their leaders? Interesting.

But anyway, yes I do think (and I have been consistent on this) that ultimately we should be considering whether Iraqis are happy. Unfortunately it looks as though Iraq is fast becoming a region consumed with sectarian strife. The failure of Iraq's new 'leaders' to quickly fill the major positions of government have given the insurgency time to re-group and step up their attacks. Your very own Rumsfeld has said the daily attacks in Iraq have risen back up to the same level they were previously.

Chalabi was not elected, he's been appointed, and I doubt you'd find many Iraqis who thought his appointment to that particular post is a particularly good idea!

The Iraqi 'state' has a problem of legitimacy at the moment, regardless of whether it was elected freely or not. The result hasn't produced a contented population. The fact that a large segment of the population viewed the election itself as illegitimate and boycotted it doesn't paint a particularly optimistic picture for the future either.

I have highlighted the part where apparently your logic breaks down. If undemocratic <- -> democratically elected. Do you see your logical problem? You can't both acknowledge that the government is democratically elected and at the same time assert it is undemocratic. It's either one, or the other.

So far, Iraq has taken a turn toward real democratic accountability, and we ought to be applauding that, and encouraging it instead of imposing our external political agendas. Of course, it is early days as yet, the government has only recently coalesced, and as the truism goes, democracy is a process not an event. However, hoping for failure and not admitting how remarkably far Iraq has come doesn't help. I mean good grief -- the president is a Kurd, and the Prime Minister a Shia! This in a country long dominated by a minority. And that minority who you point out boycotted the election STILL ended up with many important government positions in the cabinet. Including, I believe, the deputy Prime Minister and the Defense Minister. That's quite impressive - not that I expect you ever to admit it. But then, it doesn't matter, does it. Self government has nothing to do with appeasing the biases of foreigners.

As for the fact that the ministers are appointed. Uh, Iraq chose your model of government. It is normal in parliamentary democracies for ministers to be selected by the legislature rather than by direct election. Aren't you a political science major? Surely you know that. Horse trading and negotiation is a part of the Parliamentary model. But we'd never say that, say, the German Chancellor is unelected just because the Bundestag selected him, so why would you say that about ministers elected by Iraq's parliament?

Other than because of your agenda, that is.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by budster101

You mean those who lived in the stronghold of the insurgents 'boycotted' on pain of death...

No, I mean some of the 35% of the Iraqi population (who are Sunnis) which mostly boycotted the elections. 3 of Iraq's provinces did not vote. The loss of the Sunni Arab vote is like Florida being left out of the US elections. The Sunnis will have to be incorporated in to the government if any kind of stability is to emerge.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was this man not elected by the Iraqis themselves?

Probably not. I know of no country where ministers are elected by the people. Do you?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I have highlighted the part where apparently your logic breaks down. If undemocratic <- -> democratically elected. Do you see your logical problem? You can't both acknowledge that the government is democratically elected and at the same time assert it is undemocratic. It's either one, or the other.

Oh please. Elections aren't the sole indicator democratic status. I'm saying early appointments of corrupt officials doesn't bode well for future democracy. It was your apparent logic I was explaining anyway. Corrupt <--> Democratic? I am criticising this development but I don't think I've suggested that this is detrimental to Iraq's democracy, only that it's not a good sign. Stupid moves like this at such an early stage is dangerous too.

So far, Iraq has taken a turn toward real democratic accountability, and we ought to be applauding that, and encouraging it instead of imposing our external political agendas. Of course, it is early days as yet, the government has only recently coalesced, and as the truism goes, democracy is a process not an event. However, hoping for failure and not admitting how remarkably far Iraq has come doesn't help. I mean good grief -- the president is a Kurd, and the Prime Minister a Shia! This in a country long dominated by a minority. And that minority who you point out boycotted the election STILL ended up with many important government positions in the cabinet. Including, I believe, the deputy Prime Minister and the Defense Minister. That's quite impressive - not that I expect you ever to admit it. But then, it doesn't matter, does it. Self government has nothing to do with appeasing the biases of foreigners.

That's all very nice. However, simply remarking how impressive the process was doesn't alter the fact that the situation is far from stable. The point of the elections was not to impress, the point was to create stability for the Iraqi people. Something which hasn't occurred, quite the opposite in fact.

As for the fact that the ministers are appointed. Uh, Iraq chose your model of government.

Contrary to what you are implying I put that in because of the question posed by Millennium.
Regardless, normally representative leaders appoint ministers who will serve in the best interests of the country. Quite frankly I'd like to know what Jaafari was smoking when he made that appointment, but he will have to rectify that error.

Other than because of your agenda, that is.

An unstable Iraq is in my interests because.....?
I can play this game too though - if anything, your unwillingness to acknowledge even the most obvious problems Iraq faces right now suits your 'agenda' too.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Probably not. I know of no country where ministers are elected by the people. Do you?

You are both right. He was elected to the Assembly, and then the Assembly has elected him to his position as a minister. That's the normal sequence in a parliamentary democracy.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I can play this game too though - if anything, your unwillingness to acknowledge even the most obvious problems Iraq faces right now suits your 'agenda' too.

Iraq has huge problems. Most (probably all) emerging democracies face huge problems. Those problems aren't going to be fixed in one election, or in a year, or in a decade. I'm not unwilling to admit problems. I'm unwilling to get into this game of Aha! 3 months after the first democratic election in Iraq's history. A little perspective is needed, and a little dose of reality. Things are going very well as yet, but these are very, very, early days. Take a breath, and take a longer, more realistic view.

And please, stop reading MoDo. She's barely qualified to comment on BayWatch plots.

[spacefreak]

Chalabi has been building his business and trade networks for a long time. He may be a slimy, shady dude, but if he can hit the ground running, there may not be a better man for the job. Iraq needs this $$$$ now.

His position is accountable to the people. If he fails to produce, he'll be replaced.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Iraq has huge problems. Most (probably all) emerging democracies face huge problems. Those problems aren't going to be fixed in one election, or in a year, or in a decade. I'm not unwilling to admit problems. I'm unwilling to get into this game of Aha! 3 months after the first democratic election in Iraq's history. A little perspective is needed, and a little dose of reality. Things are going very well as yet, but these are very, very, early days. Take a breath, and take a longer, more realistic view.

I'm not playing a game of 'Aha!' I'm interested in discussing the current situation in Iraq.

And please, stop reading MoDo. She's barely qualified to comment on BayWatch plots.

Oh oh, I'm sorry! I must have lost my bookmarks of 'Simey Approved' news sites when I installed Tiger!

[lil'babykitten]

Why does the forum keep getting the last poster wrong?

[Randman]

Wake me when/if the discussion gets beyond a political column.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by budster101

Wow you got that article from the New York Slimes? I'm not going to subscribe to read that trash rag.

you don't have to believe everything Bill oreilly tells you.
Would you prefer the post? Its objectivity is unquestionable of course.




oh..turns out they were right btw

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Ahmad Chalabi is Iraqs new Oil Minister and one of the four deputy Prime Ministers.

He's also a convicted conman, wanted by Jordan. He's also a suspected Iranian spy. He was even sidelined by the US after he lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq.

His nephew happens to be in charge of the Finance Ministry in Iraq now too.

How long before allegations of corruption emerge?

Are we happy with the way "democracy" is developing in Iraq?

Relevant article: http://nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30dowd.html

The gov't there selected him, complain to them, it's their democracy.

[Randman]

I say we send LBK over there to straighten matters right up.

[budster101]

I'll pony up $5.00 towards her bus ticket...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The gov't there selected him, complain to them, it's their democracy.

I guess American nation-building projects take a different route to most then, eh? Screw over a country and let them pick up the pieces by themselves. And shirk off any responsibility you have for the result if things don't quite turn out how you planned. Right?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I guess American nation-building projects take a different route to most then, eh? Screw over a country and let them pick up the pieces by themselves. And shirk off any responsibility you have for the result if things don't quite turn out how you planned. Right?

Why would anyone expect you to think any differently? Wouldn't fit with your agenda.

FYI, I don't agree with US ploicy either, we were too quick to turn things over and we aren't working hard enough to put down the insurgency. Oh well, the wonderful world of compromise.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I guess American nation-building projects take a different route to most then, eh? Screw over a country and let them pick up the pieces by themselves. And shirk off any responsibility you have for the result if things don't quite turn out how you planned. Right?

Shirk off any responsibility! That's pretty rich considering that the US has taken almost all the responsibility. The bulk of the troops dying over there who aren't Iraqi are Americans. Most of the money going to Iraq is American. Most of the rest of the world wrote Iraq off a couple of decades ago, and is doing precisely squat. In fact, they are doing worse than squat, they are cheering each and every setback as a vindication of their own bankrupt position. You cheered when Spain washed its hands of Iraq, you and you cheer every other country that fails to take responsibility.

You have an election two days from now. I caught a few minutes the other day of one of your candidates for PM on Newsnight. He appeared before a panel of members of the public and David Dimbleby. Kennedy and the Lib Dems say that they will walk away from Iraq in December even if asked to stay by the Iraqi government.

That's revolting, and dispicable. But an example of how bankrupt the "anti-war" crowd has become. So don't give me this crap about not taking responsibility.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I guess American nation-building projects take a different route to most then, eh? Screw over a country and let them pick up the pieces by themselves. And shirk off any responsibility you have for the result if things don't quite turn out how you planned. Right?

I do not see how the US is shirking its responsibility. If they were to cut and run now, in the middle of the insurgency, that would certainly be shirking, but they have not done this.

Or are you saying that the US should depose a real democracy simply because you don't like the people it elected? There is little love lost betwen Chalabi and the US anymore, believe you me, but we're abiding by the process as much as the Iraqis. The same logic which gives the US a duty to depose leaders whose only crime is international unpopularity would also dictate that the UN should have invaded the US to depose Bush after his election. Are you prepared to claim this as well, or is this going a little too far for your tastes?

Or are you saying that Iraq is not ready for democracy, and that the US should assume control again?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Why would anyone expect you to think any differently? Wouldn't fit with your agenda.

Your fluffy reply aside, is my statement of what I understand to be your logic correct or not then?

FYI, I don't agree with US ploicy either, we were too quick to turn things over and we aren't working hard enough to put down the insurgency. Oh well, the wonderful world of compromise.

I don't believe I've talked about what I think of US policy in Iraq in this thread yet, except when I posted my interpretation of your post relating to what you seem to think the US's role is now.

If by your above statement you think the US should be viciously attacking suspected 'strongholds' of resistance, then I disagree. I would have hoped the US had learnt from previous efforts that such aggressive tactics only momentarily displace the resistance whilst fueling more hatred toward their presence.

US efforts would be better channeled through a mediating role between the various groups in the Iraqi government in order to ensure all sides are satisfied with the resultant cabinet. Whilst Jafaari and Co. were humming and harring over filling up the key posts, the insurgency stepped up its attacks, clouding the initial jubilation over the elections. Today, even after the cabinet was announced key posts remain unfilled.

Right now the only thing Iraqis want is stability and security. Their government should be drawing up strategies to combat the current instability, the sooner the better. The longer it takes to sort out the most basic task of forming a government, the more difficult it will be to end the violence, especially if the country falls in to civil war in that time.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Shirk off any responsibility!....

I don't think you read the post I was replying to. MacNstein's comment struck me as a very arrogant and irresponsible way to look at the situation in Iraq now, hence my question.

If US policy does come to reflect the idea that all of Iraqs problems are the Iraqi people's problems and theirs only, then yes I would say that that is to completely shirk off any US responsibility.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

If US policy does come to reflect the idea that all of Iraqs problems are the Iraqi people's problems and theirs only, then yes I would say that that is to completely shirk off any US responsibility.

That's the lib-dem's policy, and also the policy of France, Germany, Russia, China, and many other countries. It's also the position of quite a few US Democrats, but it clearly isn't the policy of the US government. So save your criticism for those who do think that way, not those who don't.

We aren't abandoning Iraq, but we are allowing Iraqis their self-determination. That is their right. That means letting Iraqis figure out who they want to run their government without snide criticisms from abroad. Criticisms such as: "Are we happy with the way "democracy" is developing in Iraq?"

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's the lib-dem's policy, and also the policy of France, Germany, Russia, China, and many other countries. It's also the position of quite a few US Democrats, but it clearly isn't the policy of the US government. So save your criticism for those who do think that way, not those who don't.

Umm..Lib Dems aside, they can say what they want because they know they aren't going to be elected, why should countries like France, Germany, Russia and China bear any of the
responsibility for what happens in Iraq? The US wanted this war, they got it and they are responsible for what happens to the country they destroyed.

That means letting Iraqis figure out who they want to run their government without snide criticisms from abroad. Criticisms such as: "Are we happy with the way "democracy" is developing in Iraq?"

I have every right to be concerned about the developments in a country where my Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters are losing their lives every day.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I have every right to be concerned about the developments in a country where my Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters are losing their lives every day.

. . . at the hands of other Arabs and Muslims.

It's great that you are concerned with what is happening in Iraq. We all should be, and we all should have the same concern for Iraq -- that they have the ability to govern themselves democratically, with the rule of law, and with power shared equitably. You can show that concern constructively by reminding people that whether or not they opposed the war two years ago, Iraq and Iraqis needs their help and support now.

[Randman]

OK, LBK. You're concerned yada yada yada.

What's your brilliant solution?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

We aren't abandoning Iraq, but we are allowing Iraqis their self-determination. That is their right. That means letting Iraqis figure out who they want to run their government without snide criticisms from abroad.

I disagree. It is the Iraqis' right to vote for their own leaders, and to criticize those leaders as they see fit, but this does not negate freedom of speech for those abroad. Outsiders can criticize just as much as insiders.

I disagree vehemently with LBK, in that I see no problem with Chalabi taking power as part of a democratic process. I personally find the man to be loathsome, but he's not being elected to run my country, so I have little cause for complaint in his taking power. The best thing about democracy -that theoretically, anyone can take power- is also the worst thing about it: theoretically, anyone can take power. It sucks so much, there's only one thing that sucks worse: everything else.

[nath]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Umm..Lib Dems aside

Don't pay undue attention to Simey's distortions. Kennedy was quite clear in the debate that he would be happy to see British troops continue in Iraq, as long as they were under UN mandate at the specific request of the Iraqi government.

However he did advocate withdrawal of UK troops as an foreign force of occupation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Don't pay undue attention to Simey's distortions. Kennedy was quite clear in the debate that he would be happy to see British troops continue in Iraq, as long as they were under UN mandate at the specific request of the Iraqi government.

However he did advocate withdrawal of UK troops as an foreign force of occupation.

Actually, he fudged that nicely. He was asked specifically if he would withdraw them if asked to keep them by the Iraqi government. He said yes, because he said it was more important to make a statement about the invasion. That was when a member of the audience got an applause by pointing out that that course of action will just condemn Iraqis to die. Then a little later he said it would be "a different matter" if the UN Security Council asked for them.

This is, of course, a fudge because the UN Security Council isn't as he presented it. It is not an independent body. It is under the control of its member states. One of those members is the United Kingdom. In fact, the UK is a permanent member with a veto. When a UN P5 member talks about the UN "asking" them to do something, it is rather like a ventriloquist waiting to be asked to do something by his dummy. There may be a different face, and the lips might be moving, but the voice isn't really the UN's, and it was rather disingenous of Kennedy to imply that it is.

So the question would be, given that the Lib Dems are committed to withdrawing troops in December, would a Lib Dem government vote for a UN Security Council resolution asking them to stay? If the answer is yes, then his campaign position promising a withdrawal is a sham. If the answer is no, then his campaign pledge promising to respond to the UN is a sham. Either way, he's full of it. And both ways, he shows that he is far more interested in posturing than in the actual security needs of Iraq.

What's funny is you oppose Blair because you think he is a slippery politician. Ha!

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Actually, he fudged that nicely. <snipped for blah blah>

He said he would withdraw UK troops when the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

Pretty simple really. If you're going to lie at least have the smarts to do it with quotes that can't be easily checked and debunked.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Randman

OK, LBK. You're concerned yada yada yada.

What's your brilliant solution?

I'll probably regret replying to you, but what the hell.

First, I don't claim to have a 'brilliant' solution. But since this is my field of study I think I have a reasonable idea as to what state-building involves, particularly when we're talking about the Middle East.

The Iraqi Army and security forces must be re-built - The US seems to have understood that. State-society relations must be restored. A stable Iraqi state will have the infrastructural power to penetrate society through its institutions. To do this the state must have authority and legitimacy, which comes from the people.

You can't build the state and suspend it above society or try and roll the state out to the people. The country's state-society institutions have to be re-built and rolled back up to the state.

So, the Iraqi state needs strong security forces, strong civil society, legitimacy and infrastructural power.

That's why I say that if Iraq fails to create a government that is viewed as legitimate by the people, they will have intense difficulty governing and will likely have to resort to the use of despotic power, which is how Saddam ruled. To avoid this, all the major sects in Iraq will have to be brought in to the government and be satisfied with their position. Then the government can focus on the most immediate task, restoring order. If and when they reach that stage they will have to engage in the process of re-building Iraqs' societal institutions.

It's not simple, it doesn't happen in weeks or months but it's the path I believe Iraq must take.
I think some of the recent developments in Iraq run counter to what needs to be happening and if it continues this way Iraq could very well erupt in to civil war, which only prolongs the instability and suffering of all involved.

[lil'babykitten]

Stupid forum! New post up there! ^^^^

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

He said he would withdraw UK troops when the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

Pretty simple really. If you're going to lie at least have the smarts to do it with quotes that can't be easily checked and debunked.

Too funny! So you are really saying you fell for his "asked by the UN" line? Surely you know how the UN Security Council really works?

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Too funny! So you are really saying you fell for his "asked by the UN" line? Surely you know how the UN Security Council really works?

Yeah, I'm just not sure how your distorted and selective quotation methods work.

He expressed a preference for mandated UN peacekeepers over occupation forces under a US/UK banner. Seems pretty sensible really, so I can understand why you closed your ears to it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Yeah, I'm just not sure how your distorted and selective quotation methods work.

He expressed a preference for mandated UN peacekeepers over occupation forces under a US/UK banner. Seems pretty sensible really, so I can understand why you closed your ears to it.

The point is still that the mandate of the UN cannot be extended or offered over the veto of HMG. He might like you to think that the voice comes from the dummy, but adults know that the ventriloquist really does the speaking. So he is in fact doing one of two things. Either he plans on voting for a new mandate in December, in which case, those troops will stay in Iraq, or he plans on vetoing a mandate in December, in which case they will go home as he promises, because he will prevent the UN from ever making the request he now pretends to be so open to.

Or I suppose the third possibility is that he is so dumb that he really thinks that the UN has an independent voice. He gave the impression of thinking that, but somehow, I think he is smarter than that. He just doesn't think his supporters are.

Or I suppose, there is a fourth possibility -- the one that LBK pointed out. He knows perfectly well he won't be PM in December. Of course, that fourth possibility doesn't exclude the third one.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A little perspective is needed, and a little dose of reality. Things are going very well as yet, but these are very, very, early days. Take a breath, and take a longer, more realistic view.

Just a little Simey?

And please, stop reading MoDo. She's barely qualified to comment on BayWatch plots.

And nothing will make some people happy.

If we were to intervene LBK, you would be saying. "THE US IS CONTROLLING IRAQ, PUPPET GOV!!11"

Now we aren't, you are saying we are slacking off, not taking responsibility.

The only thing you seem to be consistent on is bitching about anything the US does, or you think they are going to do.

It's pretty transparent.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The point is still that the mandate of the UN cannot be extended or offered over the veto of HMG. He might like you to think that the voice comes from the dummy, but adults know that the ventriloquist really does the speaking. So he is in fact doing one of two things. Either he plans on voting for a new mandate in December, in which case, those troops will stay in Iraq, or he plans on vetoing a mandate in December, in which case they will go home as he promises, because he will prevent the UN from ever making the request he now pretends to be so open to.

Or I suppose the third possibility is that he is so dumb that he really thinks that the UN has an independent voice. He gave the impression of thinking that, but somehow, I think he is smarter than that. He just doesn't think his supporters are.

Or I suppose, there is a fourth possibility -- the one that LBK pointed out. He knows perfectly well he won't be PM in December. Of course, that fourth possibility doesn't exclude the third one.

Wow. You really are twisting and turning today!

He said if UK troops were to remain in Iraq they should be under a UN mandate and there explicitly as peacekeepers. He was comparing that to the current situation of an occupying force which in his view (and that of many) is exacerbating tensions within Iraq.

So it seems pretty clear he would vote for one, but not for the other, were a proposal made to the UNSC when the current mandate expires at the end of the year.

All of which is getting a long way from my initial point (which is of course what you want) - the fact that yet again you have been caught in the act of telling porkies.

Bad Simey! Naughty dog!

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Ahmad Chalabi is Iraqs new Oil Minister and one of the four deputy Prime Ministers.

He's also a convicted conman, wanted by Jordan. He's also a suspected Iranian spy. He was even sidelined by the US after he lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq.

His nephew happens to be in charge of the Finance Ministry in Iraq now too.

How long before allegations of corruption emerge?

I don't see legitimacy in an Iraq democracy when corrupt people like Chalabi are involved.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Elections aren't the sole indicator democratic status.

Exactly.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by demograph68

I don't see legitimacy in an Iraq democracy when corrupt people like Chalabi are involved.

I guess the UN isn't legitimate. Or France's government for that matter.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I guess the UN isn't legitimate. Or France's government for that matter.

Corruption is corruption. The more corruption their is, the less legitimate the system. Am I suppose to choose between the UN or Iraq?

[Zimphire]

No, I am saying such reasoning is well.. silly.

One doesn't need your approval to be legitimate.

Don't you think thinking as much is a tad bit pretentious?

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, I am saying such reasoning is well.. silly.

One doesn't need your approval to be legitimate.

Don't you think thinking as much is a tad bit pretentious?

My approval or disapproval is irrelevant. The focus here is Ahmad Chalabi. Does his character threaten the integrity of Iraq's government? From what was mentioned, it appears to be so.

[Randman]

Personally I think he's a dodgy character. But then again, I think most politicians are dodgy characters. My question is: Can he do the job? If so, then it's to the benefit of the Iraqi government to get money pouring back in which will improve matters there for most all. They can worry about character once suicide bombers and terrorist attacks are on the back burner.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by demograph68

My approval or disapproval is irrelevant. The focus here is Ahmad Chalabi. Does his character threaten the integrity of Iraq's government? From what was mentioned, it appears to be so.

Integrity and government is an oxymoron.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Integrity and government is an oxymoron.

With that attitude, why care who we elect in the first place?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by demograph68

With that attitude, why care who we elect in the first place?

I am not saying everyone in the Gov is.

But by nature, it will never be that trustworthy.

I mean it is run by man.