Full interview is here.

[link|http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030424-secdef0125.html|Here] at the Pentagon.

[...]

Q: What are your concerns about when you are working towards that interim authority to have other people in the country (Inaudible.) the Iranian supported Shiite, the people that have moved in. Do you have concerns about that? And do you have any concerns about maybe Iraq might choose to have a Theocracy? Could the United States accept that?

Rumsfeld: Well, I guess you get into the question, well what do you mean by a Theocracy precisely. So you get into a definitional issue. I think the important thing to think of is. Take Afghanistan. It is enormously unhelpful if a Taliban from outside the country try to influence Afghanistan. It\ufffds unhelpful if the Iranian\ufffds try to subvert what\ufffds going on in Afghanistan.

We wouldn\ufffdt like it if our neighbors were trying to influence what\ufffds happening inside our country. So what you want to try to do is to have external influences muted or eliminated to the extent possible. The Iraqi people I think over time will not want influence from Iran in their country. They won\ufffdt want influence from Syria in their country. Now there will be some people who will. There are Ba\ufffdath party members who would like to have influence from the Ba\ufffdath party in Syria. There will be some people who may be pro-Iranian who would like that but the broad center of gravity in that country is not going to want their neighbors to be running their country.

Q: May I follow up on an Afghanistan --

Rumsfeld: You know what I would like to have.

Q: Would you like to elaborate on that? I didn\ufffdt mean it in a --

Rumsfeld: Well I think that you asked how do we feel about it. We feel that that\ufffds not a good idea and the neighboring countries ought not to try an influence the outcome of the situation there. Over time the Iraqi\ufffds are going to figure out a way to manage their future and it will be consistent with the principles that we set out. A single country, a country that doesn\ufffdt have weapons of mass destruction, doesn\ufffdt threaten its neighbors and is respectful of the rights of minorities and religious diversity in the country.

And there\ufffdll be some sort of a representative government that will evolve and a non-dictatorial, a non-repressive government. And if you are suggesting how would we feel about an Iranian type government, with a few clerics running everything in the country. The answer is, that ain\ufffdt gonna happen, I just don\ufffdt see how that\ufffds going to happen.

[...]

In context, it seems to me that he's saying that the US won't accept Iran dictating what type of government that Iraq has. And that seems to me to be a resonable position.

Regards,
Scott.

Well I think that you asked how do we feel about it. We feel that that\ufffds not a good idea and the neighboring countries ought not to try an influence the outcome of the situation there. Over time the Iraqi\ufffds are going to figure out a way to manage their future and it will be consistent with the principles that we set out. A single country, a country that doesn\ufffdt have weapons of mass destruction, doesn\ufffdt threaten its neighbors and is respectful of the rights of minorities and religious diversity in the country.

Now, "we" obviously hold a personal bias toward "our principles." But is Rummy intentionally missing the obvious irony in his statement. We don't think Iraq will want their gov't to be influenced by outside states... so we, as an outside state will do more than influence, we'll dictate.

ughgh... Iraq isn't quite the Virgin Islands, but as a colony it'll offer something completely different.

mx.

Post #98,628 by Another Scott 4/24/03 8:29:31 PM Reply	Full interview is here. [link\|http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030424-secdef0125.html\|Here] at the Pentagon. [...] Q: What are your concerns about when you are working towards that interim authority to have other people in the country (Inaudible.) the Iranian supported Shiite, the people that have moved in. Do you have concerns about that? And do you have any concerns about maybe Iraq might choose to have a Theocracy? Could the United States accept that? Rumsfeld: Well, I guess you get into the question, well what do you mean by a Theocracy precisely. So you get into a definitional issue. I think the important thing to think of is. Take Afghanistan. It is enormously unhelpful if a Taliban from outside the country try to influence Afghanistan. It\ufffds unhelpful if the Iranian\ufffds try to subvert what\ufffds going on in Afghanistan. We wouldn\ufffdt like it if our neighbors were trying to influence what\ufffds happening inside our country. So what you want to try to do is to have external influences muted or eliminated to the extent possible. The Iraqi people I think over time will not want influence from Iran in their country. They won\ufffdt want influence from Syria in their country. Now there will be some people who will. There are Ba\ufffdath party members who would like to have influence from the Ba\ufffdath party in Syria. There will be some people who may be pro-Iranian who would like that but the broad center of gravity in that country is not going to want their neighbors to be running their country. Q: May I follow up on an Afghanistan -- Rumsfeld: You know what I would like to have. Q: Would you like to elaborate on that? I didn\ufffdt mean it in a -- Rumsfeld: Well I think that you asked how do we feel about it. We feel that that\ufffds not a good idea and the neighboring countries ought not to try an influence the outcome of the situation there. Over time the Iraqi\ufffds are going to figure out a way to manage their future and it will be consistent with the principles that we set out. A single country, a country that doesn\ufffdt have weapons of mass destruction, doesn\ufffdt threaten its neighbors and is respectful of the rights of minorities and religious diversity in the country. And there\ufffdll be some sort of a representative government that will evolve and a non-dictatorial, a non-repressive government. And if you are suggesting how would we feel about an Iranian type government, with a few clerics running everything in the country. The answer is, that ain\ufffdt gonna happen, I just don\ufffdt see how that\ufffds going to happen. [...] In context, it seems to me that he's saying that the US won't accept Iran dictating what type of government that Iraq has. And that seems to me to be a resonable position. Regards, Scott.
Post #98,693 by Simon_Jester 4/25/03 9:37:46 AM Reply	Of course it is... In context, it seems to me that he's saying that the US won't accept Iran dictating what type of government that Iraq has. And that seems to me to be a resonable position. the question is, who decides that Iran has dictated what kind of government Iraq has? (And based on what evidence?)
Post #98,745 by xtensive 4/25/03 12:55:48 PM Reply	Its to our advantage that we're not Iraq's neighbor Well I think that you asked how do we feel about it. We feel that that\ufffds not a good idea and the neighboring countries ought not to try an influence the outcome of the situation there. Over time the Iraqi\ufffds are going to figure out a way to manage their future and it will be consistent with the principles that we set out. A single country, a country that doesn\ufffdt have weapons of mass destruction, doesn\ufffdt threaten its neighbors and is respectful of the rights of minorities and religious diversity in the country. Now, "we" obviously hold a personal bias toward "our principles." But is Rummy intentionally missing the obvious irony in his statement. We don't think Iraq will want their gov't to be influenced by outside states... so we, as an outside state will do more than influence, we'll dictate. ughgh... Iraq isn't quite the Virgin Islands, but as a colony it'll offer something completely different. mx. "I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible." -- Malcolm X

Welcome to IWETHEY!