Quote:
Originally Posted by Spadplanter
So tell me, how has the millions of abortions affected the future. Are there some people that do not exist that should have and what detrimental effects has that had on us? Somehow I think those millions of murdered children may have had some benefit to society, up to and including finding a way to prevent there ever being another Hitler, Saddam, et al. As long as you're using the butterfly effect for anti-US purposes, take it to its logical conclusion.
|
Hmm... I see immediately the interjection of an agenda. You wish to raise a question of abortion in a thread designated for international politics, in particular issues of the middle east. Now, if you were to mention forced abortions or euthanasia in a dictatorial regime, or the stoning of adulterous women who are discovered pregnant,
et cetera, your interjection may hold logical support. However, what you have just done is tried to change the subject of discussion. I would appreciate it, as I'm sure the moderators would, if you kept questions of abortion to the appropriate threads.
Moving on... Let us consider the question of the colloquial hydra, and how it applies to the chaos theory and Saddam Hussein's hanging. We are immediately faced with a number of - no doubt - unpleasant scenarios which may unfold in the days and weeks to come.
Immediately following Saddam Hussein's
depositus and capture we have the emergence of several individuals of varying influence who assert themselves rightful successors to Iraqi leadership. Primary among these are members of the Hizb al-Ba'th al-'Arabi al-Ishtiraki (otherwise known as the Ba'th party), and several influental Islamic Imam. The former, having their influence significantly diminished by the empowerment of the Shi'ite population, can be overlooked (except by possible allegations of connections to or funding of insurgency in Iraq - 'insurgency' itself called into question by the U.S. involvement in Iraq, a matter of semantics to be sure).
Now, what of the Imam? There are twelve different uses of the term 'Imam' in the Qu'ran, seven in the singular and five in the plural. In Shi'a Islam, an 'Imam' is most importantly a leader of the Shi'ite community and must be descended from Husayn or Hassan, among other attributes. Often, the term 'Imam' is given to the leader of the Mosque, who does not have to be a cleric. As a matter of fact, any Islamic penitent may lead the Mosque in prayer, or issue the call to prayer. The term, ultimately, is a civic or secular title, with notable religious overtones (as is to be expected in a culture where religion is integral to its function and identity). However, not all Imams are clerics, and not all clerics are Imam.
Islam is unique among religions, because more often than not it transcends nationality in a way that Christianity does not. If you asked the average American if they considered themselves a Christian, American, Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, or Other on a census, and secondly to rate the priority in order, most would use a hyphenate appelation, or rate nationality first. In a study conducted in 2004 in Scotland, it was found among Glasgow Pakistani Teenagers, even those several generations Scots, that they would prefer to be known as Muslims first, or as Islamic-Scots, or some other hyphenate appelation.
Knowing both that Imam is a secular title important religiously, and the importance of relgion in defining identity among people of Islamic heritage, it is not difficult to understand the emergence of the Imams as important players in Iraq, post Hussein. Further, the creation or development of an Islamic state is also not unforseeable. I, personally, do not believe that democracy in its Americanized form can or will be sustainable within Iraq or Kurdistan. The people must want democracy, and must willfully choose their leaders. Otherwise it falls apart.
This is why I ask the question, "Should Saddam Hussein have been removed from power?" Iraq is now at a nexus, a crossroads, a meeting of options and opportunities from which chaos may decide the outcome or course. I believe that while Democracy may be chosen by the people, it will naturally take a form different than that of the West, and indeed it must because cultural and traditional climes differ. If they are to make peace among themselves, and not fall to civil war, then they either must choose this path themselves, fight it out, or stand under a single leader.
Removing Saddam Hussein was, undoubtedly, not a question of how, but when. However, by removing Hussein before someone of equal, albeit questionable, merits could be found to replace him. Hussein may have been evil, and ruled by fear, but perhaps that fear kept the other instabilities and tensions between the Shi'a and the Sunni in check. Perhaps, just maybe, it took an iron fist to keep a volatile nation from ripping itself apart at the seams.
Please keep in mind that this is just conjecure, offered for argument and reflection, and I do not purport to wholeheartedly believe everything I have written here. I am merely playing devil's advocate, but please consider the ramifications of Hussein's removal.
With the Imam leading the popular vote, despite the raising of the Iraqi 'government', what of Iraq after the American secession from Iraq? Will the government hold? If not, which is more probable than not, what of the tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite? Can they resolve their differences? Further, if they cannot, what course do you see the death of Saddam Hussein playing?