[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070114" target="_blank">Support network</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> January 14, 2007

I\'m not a huge fan of the parliamentary system in the best of times, but I think imposing it on Iraq was a particularly bad idea. As it stands now, Iraq\'s prime minister holds office because he leads a coalition government composed of all the main Shiite parties in the legislature. If one of them pulls out, his coalition will break down and his government will collapse. <br> <br>Muqtada al-Sadr is a radical anti-American terrorist leader, but he also leads a radical Shiite party that is a partner in Prime Minster Maliki\'s coalition. Bush wants Maliki to crackdown on al-Sadr\'s militia groups, but Maliki fears for his political future. The Iraqi system of government has made a bad situation much worse than it should be. <br> <br>And then there\'s good old John McCain who just wants everything to work out so he can get elected president and not have to apologize for being so staunchly pro-war and pro-Bush.

[ejacksonian]

McCain has always supported for more troops. In fact, it was fairly popular position until the Elections on November 2006. That's when it all changed.

I also want to point out that if the Iraqi system was presidential, that would run into different problems; first, if the Executive disagreed with the Legislative, they would essentially gridlock each other.

Does anyone know if Iraq currently uses First-Past-The-Post or Proportional Representation?

[PTBO]

I'm not a huge fan of illegal and aggressive invasions at the best of times, but I think imposing one on Iraq was a particularly bad idea.

[JJ]

ha ha

[Kjorteo]

Well, we did kind of run in there with all the grace of a bull in a china shop, and now that we're stuck cleaning everything up, we somehow hit across the idea that the best answer is to summon more bulls.

Really, I think this cartoon is a picture-perfect illustration of why nation-building (and wasn't it W himself who came up with that term for it, in an ironic-in-hindisght jab at Al Gore?) is a terrible idea. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, hm?

[ejacksonian]

Well, from what infromation I've seen, the lower house of the government of Iraq is INDEED proportional representation. I think this is more of problem than the system being parliamentary system.

However, I just want to remind the obvious alternative to a parliamentary system would be a presidential system, and the obvious alternative to proportional representation would be "first-past-the-post" single-member districts.

[Psudo]

I very much doubt that the term "nation-building" started with Iraq. As often as I've heard it used to refer to West Germany and post-Imperial Japan, I think it's only earned a new negative connotation with it's application to Iraq.

And it's all well and good to oppose nation-building in Iraq, but who can complain that Germany and Japan are backwards, divided, or ruined by their post-WW2 reconstructions? Thus, it is not nation-building itself you oppose, but nation-building in the modern era. I find it unlikely that anyone thinks we should have left Germany alone after WW2 as we had done after WW1.

[ejacksonian]

Well, Germany and Japan were very different than Iraq. Germany was pretty much smashed, the people tired. After years and years of war, they no longer had much will to fight any longer, while Japan willingly (albeit grudgingly) surrendered. On the other hand, some people, whether inside or outside groups, are still willing to fight, it's not going to end until someone's spirit is broken.

[Kjorteo]

I was referring to the first 2000 Presidential debate between Bush and Gore, in which Bush repeatedly slammed Gore for Clinton's practice of "what's called 'nation-building,'" (Bush's words) saying that, by contrast, he, Bush, would not do such a thing. The irony is staggering.

I'm pretty sure the Daily Show drew upon that clip for its Bush vs. Bush skit, though, so I'm far from the first person to notice it.

[ejacksonian]

Yes, the Daily Show did make a clip of it, and, my god, what a contrast! It's almost a 180 degree turn!

[Psudo]

Yeah, it's amazing what changes when something in your homeland is blown up by enemies.

[Kjorteo]

Please explain what that has to do with a completely irrelevant country we had already beaten into relative submission (at least on an international level?)

Oh, crap, is this the Iraq justification circle starting again?

Why did we invade Iraq? Because of 9/11, stupid.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? They had WMD and Al Qaeda training camps.
Uh, no they didn't. Okay, but Saddam was still a brutal dictator and it sure feels good to spread Democracy and liberation and stuff.
But why are we wasting our time doing that in Iraq, after candidate Bush specifically said that nation-building is futile and bad? Because of 9/11, stupid.

(Keep cycling through answers until target finds one they seem to accept, or until head meets desk)

[CanadianJeff]

heh. Kjorteo nailed that one head on.

Except I would answer all that with but two words.

Security, Oil.

Quite frankly Iraq with nukes would have indeed been a very very bad thing and WMDs in that country would indeed have been worthy of being taken out by force if needed.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves it's vital to a government that fuels it's economy on oil to have a nation where they could freely trade in the fuel.

Having a US friendly government in Iraq could have helped prevent an upcoming oil crisis. Would it not?

[Kjorteo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Having a US friendly government in Iraq could have helped prevent an upcoming oil crisis. Would it not?

So could alternative energy and conservation, but eh, maybe I'm just a hippie.

Actually, a US-friendly government in Iraq would only have helped delay an upcoming oil crisis anyway. Oil is a non-renewable resource, remember? Fossil fuels? Dinosaurs? Every nation on Earth that has oil could receive spontaneous visits from the "You want to share with the United States" fairy, but that stuff just isn't going to last forever.

[ejacksonian]

You know the famous one-liner (one I do not agree with): Play Hard, Work Hard, Live Hard, Die Young.