OK, I'll ask the obvious dumb question just to get it out there for people to get off their chest.

1 February 2005 | EDCOIL

[MadIvan]

You've got it slightly askew. Sunnis represent 20% of the population and had a hold of the higher professions in Iraq, as well as provided the bulk of the leadership for Saddam's regime. However, this does not mean that all Sunnis supported Saddam, nor does it mean that all Sunnis benefited from Saddam's rule. It does mean that most of the home-grown insurgents are from that community.

It's a tricky balance - one does not want to automatically tar the Sunnis as all being complicit in Saddam's reign, yet there are reasons to say "Who cares" if not all of them voted. The balance at present is about right: the opportunity to vote was presented. If they took it, good. If not, too bad, but life goes on.

Regards, Ivan

[Mr. Lucky]

No flaming. Your post pretty well nails the treasonous stupidity of Senators Kennedy and What's-His-Name.

[Heavyrunner]

I think the idea is that the Nazis represented a political ideology that made all of them essentially morally bankrupt.

The bulk of Muslims are Sunni, and not all of the Sunni Muslims in Iraq were responsible for the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Your analogy would be more appropriate if you commented on allowing the Ba'ath party to maintain a political franchise.

[HeadOn]

I don't think that's a stupid question at all.

Seems to me that the Sunni's ought to be grateful for whatever consideration they get - but you know human nature - if they are used to being in charge, they expect to be in charge forever, and they'll bitch and moan about how unfair the majority is and how hateful they are.... Hey, wait a minute - I slipped off into the Democratic Party.....

[Tom Bombadil]

Not all Sunnis are monsters but your drift is in the right direction.

There is such a thing as an "average" Iraqi. They don't want power over other people and they just want to be left alone to live a good life. There are many Sunnis among this group.

[prion]

No, it's more like including white people in a post-Apartheid government. In fact, numerically, it's very much like that.

[msnimje]

The fact that the "henchmen" where Sunni does not mean all Sunni are "henchmen."

[Lancey Howard]

Your analogy is fatally flawed. You could compare "Germans" to "Sunnis" or you could compare "Nazis" to "Saddam's regime of thugs", but comparing "Nazis" to "Sunnis" makes no sense.

Best regards,
LH

[granite]

I may have asked this before, but why are we in Iraq?

[Fruitbat]

It's right up there with "needing to understand why some $%&#@* raped his fifth child!"

It's what happens when you don't believe in a creator/God and have no firm foundation for moral beliefs. You have go dig, scratch, and claw for reasons to understand the obvious.

Moral vacuity!

[Piquaboy]

Was that a serious question, or are you just stupid like the Rats?

[RonF]

No, it's more like saying "High ranking Nazi officials will be prosecuted for crimes against humanity; low-ranking officials and simple members of the party will be examined and, if not suspected of crimes will be pardoned and allowed to vote in elections; and general Germans citizens not active in the Nazi party at all will be given full civil rights immediately."

[kevkrom]

Isn't that kinda like making sure the Nazi's were properly and politically represented in Israel?

That's over-exaggeration. But it is kind of like saying that former Nazi party members should be properly represented in post-WWII Germany. "Kind of like" in the sense that being Sunni or Shiite is basically a factor of parentage, whereas membership in the Nazi party was a choice (even for those who only paid lip service to the party in order to lead a reasonably normal life).

[Jason_b]

Why not?

[MKM1960]

I think that there will be reprisals against the Sunni population. They are tasting freedom now. When they realize that their strength in numbers far outweighs the the Sunni's position in the new government, not only will the previous overlords be prosecuted for their crimes. Idividuals will also be up against frontier justice.

Not the same religion, but Karma is a female dog.

[Enterprise]

There were undoubtedly a lot of Sunnis who benefited from Saddam's rule, and while some of them may have participated in the atrocities, not all of them did. Remember too, that some of the "Saddam Fedayeen," the most brutal of Saddam's enforcers, were citizens of other nations. It would be like punishing Germans because some Austrians were members of the SS.

[Robe]

FOX NEWS mentioned last night that after WWII, over 100,000 collaborators were killed in the streets after the liberation.
These things have a way of working themselves out.

[Nonstatist]

I may have asked this before, but why are we in Iraq?

Iraq broke the '91 ceasefire agreement. Their time had come to pay the piper. Too bad for Hussein and his left-wing apologists.

[Fido969]

I think this is well-reasoned, but the Sunnis also has an opportunity to vote on Sunday, many Iraqis risked (and gave) their lives to bring about the birth of their democracy. There is no doubt now that Iraq WANTS a democracy. We are on the right track.

Iraq isn't Ohio or Florida or Washington state. I can't imagine Eisenhower, after WWII saying that the new German government would not be legitimate unless all Germans were able to vote immediately. The terrorists, even if a minority of the Sunnis probably did not vote Sunday, because they were more interested in trying to make the election a failure.

And if they kept other Sunnis from the polls, well, I think the US has done everything possible to try to protect the Iraqis during the election, the US has taken more than it's share of responsibility there. Eventually you just have to say "Sunnis, you're going to have to stop screwing yourselves, because we can't do it for you any more."

And that is where the dem argument completely fails, it rejects the idea of ANY personal responsibility and self-help.