Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Gli Iraqeni chiedono la democrazia. Washington non ci sta.

C'e ancora qualcuno che si beve le balle retoriche sulla "liberazione"
Irakena?!
L'unica speranza per la democrazia (in Iraq e nel mondo) e' che questa
guerra sara' un fallimento fatale per Bush, Berlusconi & co.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/weekinreview/30BERE.html?ex=1071156800&ei=1&en=ee97074acf502db2
Iraq's Shiites Insist on Democracy. Washington Cringes.By ALEX
BERENSON
FOR seven months, the United States has tried to finesse two crucial
questions about the future of Iraq: How much control will the
country's Shiite majority have over the drafting of a constitution?
And how Islamic will that constitution be?
 The answers could determine whether Iraq becomes a multiparty
democracy, an Islamic theocracy, or even slides into civil war.
 Last week, those questions took on a new urgency. Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani, the most important Shiite religious leader in Iraq and
probably the most powerful local leader of any kind, said he opposed
the American plan to turn over power to an Iraqi government next year
without direct elections.
 Ayatollah Sistani has vast influence over Iraq's 15 million Shiites,
and so far he has urged them to show patience with the occupation. But
he has insisted that delegates elected by popular vote write Iraq's
constitution and approve its new government.
 "No one has the right to appoint the members of the constitutional
assembly," he said several weeks ago, in a statement in response to
written questions. "We see no alternative but to go back to the people
for choosing their representatives."
 That view has opened a rift between the Shiite majority, roughly 60
percent of Iraq's population, and the Sunnis and Kurds, each about 20
percent of the population. (The Kurds, who dominate northern Iraq, are
themselves Sunni Muslim but have little in common with the Arab
Sunnis, who ran Iraq under Saddam Hussein and are usually referred to
only as Sunnis.) Nor can the United States afford to ignore the Shiite
position, analysts say.
 The Shiite leaders "have a tremendous amount of clout," said Kenneth
Katzman, senior Iraq analyst for the Congressional Research Service.
"They can set off major, major demonstrations of hundreds of thousands
of people at the drop of a hat."
 In addition, it is unclear whether the United States, whose motives
for invading Iraq are regarded with skepticism by many, will feel it
can oppose a clear call for popular democracy - exactly what the
United States said it wanted to bring to Iraq.
 The United States and the American-appointed Governing Council agreed
on Nov. 15 that council members and local governments would choose an
assembly next June to pick an interim Iraqi government. That
government would then draft a constitution. The process would probably
mute the influence of Ayatollah Sistani and the other three Shiite
grand ayatollahs who live in Najaf, about 100 miles south of Baghdad.
 On Wednesday, however, Ayatollah Sistani, through a spokesman, said
he would not support an interim government unless it was elected by a
direct vote. In an effort to reach a compromise, Jalal Talabani, the
Kurdish president of the Governing Council, traveled Thursday to Najaf
to meet with the ayatollah.
 A senior coalition official in Iraq, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said on Friday that the American-led coalition was not
opposed in principle to direct elections but did not believe it could
be ready to conduct one by June. But the official noted that the
coalition would not automatically approve direct elections even if the
procedural problems could be worked out. "It would be something we
would talk about," he said.
 But finding a compromise may be difficult. Mr. Hussein, a Sunni,
impoverished much of Shiite southern Iraq, and jailed or killed many
Shiite leaders. Now the Shiites want power to match their numbers -
which is precisely what the Kurds and Sunnis fear. In addition, the
United States is concerned that many of Iraq's Shiite clerics are
supported by the anti-American Iranian theocracy.
 To make sure their followers understand the issue, Shiite clerics
across the south have for months proselytized about the importance of
the constitution, while mosques offer worshipers pamphlets explaining
the subject.
 Then there is the constitution itself. However they are chosen,
Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish delegates will have to balance the
conservatism of the Shiites with the relative liberalism of Sunnis and
Kurds. Critical questions include the rights of women; whether senior
clerics can overrule laws passed by an elected parliament; and how
closely Iraqi law will follow the Koranic Sharia law.
 "We totally allow women to go and work," Sheik Ali al-Najafi, the son
of and spokesman for Bashir al-Najafi, one of the grand ayatollahs,
said in an interview last month. "But to work in jobs that respect
their dignity."
 The Shiite ayatollahs say they want any constitution to be based
closely on Islamic law, while still respecting individual and minority
rights. What that means in practice is less clear, and may not be
entirely to the liking of the United States.
 Ayatollah Sistani has said constitution should guarantee individual
liberties as long as they are consistent "with the religious facts and
the social values of the Iraqi people." At the same time, he said
elected leaders, not clerics, should have the final authority to make
laws in a democratic Iraq. "The authority will be for the people who
will get the majority of votes," he said in response to questions last
month.
 Bridging the gap between Islamic values and Western views of human
rights will not be easy, said Noah Feldman, an assistant professor at
New York University and expert on Islamic law who is advising Iraq on
the drafting process. But Mr. Feldman said he believed the clerics
would not demand an Iranian-style theocracy.
 "It's going to be tricky and it's delicate, but it's going to be
solvable, because in the end the Shia clerics are open to a state
that's a democratic state but is also respectful of Islam," Mr.
Feldman said. "No one around Sistani is saying, `Rule of the clerics.'
"
 Perhaps not, but the coalition official acknowledged that the
coalition would have little control over an elected assembly and that
it might result in a government unfriendly to the United States.
 "There are some people who I think are on principle have concern
about the Shias," he said. Still, the coalition has little choice but
to move quickly to hand over power to Iraqis, he said. "No one likes
an occupation."

 guerra sara' un fallimento fatale per Bush, Berlusconi & co.
Hai finito di fare disinformazione?
Quando una guerra è giusta è giusta!

A casa mia la parola disinformazione non esiste. Come Voltaire io
lottero' sempre perchè ognuno possa liberamente esprimere la propria
opinione. 
La libertà di parola è fondamentale in ogni democrazia. Dato che non è
possibile stabilire oggettivamente e da un punto di vista neutro chi
informa o chi disinforma, il mondo occidentale dal 1789 in poi ha
deciso che la libera espressione è la migliore forma di libertà. 
Esistono comunque delle forme di reato che tutelano contro l'abuso
della libertà di parola. Tale è ad esempio il reato di diffamazione.
Non esiste alcun reato connesso alla "disinformazione". Quindi se tu o
qualcun altro "disinforma" non è sanzionabile. Anzi, il tuo diritto di
parola è costituzionalmente garantito.
Quindi ben venga il libero arbitrio, la disinformazione e la libertà
di giudicare a cosa credere e cosa non credere. Queste sono le basi
della democrazia. Io sono un democratico e sono orgoglioso di esserlo.
Credo che queso valga per tutti, oppure mi sbaglio?  
Gradirei sapere 

Quando una guerra č giusta č giusta!

 disinformazione ?
Non mi pare che l'Economist abbia fatto disinformazione. Io parlavo di 
Giorgio che come al solito fa disinformazione dal momento che gli stessi 
Americani faranno fare elezioni prima della fine di prossimo anno.

guerra sara' un fallimento fatale per Bush, Berlusconi & co.
Se lo dici tu.. :)))
*LOL*
-Stefano

Quando una guerra č giusta č giusta!
ok, aspettiamo ancora le wmd... LOL
Socio del Luigino Fans Club. Tessera n° 0094.

 ok, aspettiamo ancora le wmd... LOL
Sarà un gran bel giorno quando le scopriranno e tu e molti altri in 
questo newsgroup dovrete riconoscere di esservi sbagliati alla grande!


Quanto tempo ti dai? 20 anni ??? Ammazzate oh....
*ROTFL*

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3FCA5DB3...@libero.it...

Il giochino richiede delle regole. Ovvero: quanto tempo occorre per trovare
le wmd? Stabilito il tempo massimo, se le trovano prima hai ragione tu; se
non le trovano entro la data prescelta, tu la smetti di parlare di guerra di
giusta, riconosci l'errore e chiedi la fine della uerra e il ritiro delle
truppe d'occupazione.
Bene, quanto tempo occorre?

Porca paletta, quanta gente che fa' disinformazione!
Se lo dici tu... :))
*ROTFL*
-Stefano

 questo newsgroup dovrete riconoscere di esservi sbagliati alla grande!
Non hai ancora imparato che gli imbecilli non sbagliano mai?
-- 
Bet Dalet Gimel
-Protokol Sheva-
"Odi profanum vulgus et arceo"

 Quanto tempo ti dai? 20 anni ??? Ammazzate oh....
Non preoccuparti, tu sarai ancora vivo: l'aspettativa di vita, otto anni fa,
era circa 78 anni.


trovare le wmd?
Impossibile dirlo.
-Stefano


wrote:

Ok, ma fino a quel giorno sei tu ad esserti sbagliato...


Non hai ancora imparato che gli imbecilli non sbagliano mai?
immagino tu sei fra questi...


 Ok, ma fino a quel giorno sei tu ad esserti sbagliato...
Forse. Ma io avevo ragione a sbagliarmi.
Tu avevavi torto ad aver ragione!

 immagino tu sei fra questi...
Immagini, appunto.


Tu avevavi torto ad aver ragione!
La logica non è proprio il tuo forte eh?



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/weekinreview/30BERE.html?ex=1071156800&ei=
1&en=ee97074acf502db2
Invece se fosse rimasto al potere Saddam la democrazia, nel mondo, avrebbe
avuto speranza?
C'e' ancora qualcuno che si beve le balle sul "sol dell'avvenire"?
Comunque per la prima volta gli iracheni possono chiedere democrazia, senza
rischiare di finire in una fossa comune.
Ma a qualcuno questo risulta insopportabile. Ovviamente perche' odiano la
democrazia.