i predicted chaos during the elections...and they worked out very well under the circumstances. i agree it's very messed up over there. And believe stronger than ever it was a mistake to go in... but it's certainly not as dire as we make out. I hope it works out for the best.
Agreed, but it's not good enough and it wasn't what we were told the war was about. How does this actually bring "security for America?"
This is amazing. How would you rectify (or work out) the three things above? And how the one below not a sexist article?
wait a second...are you arguing that we are to override the will of the people in Iraq to form their own government however they choose? are we now buying into the notion that if it's Islamic, it's necessarily bad? that doesn't sound very progressive of you, mark. it's a chance to beat up on the president, but i'm not sure it reflects well on the principles i believe you hold.
Sunnis threaten civil war as Iraq constitution deadline extended http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1746919,00.html August 23, 2005 From Catherine Philp in Baghdad IN A dramatic midnight turnaround, Iraq’s ruling Shia pulled back from threats to force the new constitution through parliament, putting off a vote to buy more time to win over Sunni Arabs who had threatened civil war if it was passed. Shia and Kurdish leaders had agreed to a draft constitution laying out plans for a federal system that would transform the Iraqi state into a loose federation of regions with a weak central government. Sunni leaders reacted with fury at the proposition, claiming that it would inflame the insurgency and trigger civil war and vowed to defeat the charter at a national referendum later this year unless demands for federalism were dropped. But Shia leaders, determined not to miss the deadline, presented the draft to parliament minutes before midnight. To loud applause, the speaker announced that the deadline had been met. Then to stunned confusion, he dismissed parliament without a vote, calling for three more days of talks between political leaders. But as the events of the evening sank in, it remained unclear what could be done to win over the recalcitrant Sunnis. Moments after parliament was adjourned, Sunnis issued a statement rejecting the draft because a consensus had not been reached. “If it passes, there will be an uprising in the streets,” Saleh al-Mutlak, a senior Sunni negotiator, said. He added that further blockage of a deal could trigger elections to a new interim assembly, a scenario that most parties — particularly the Shias — wish to avoid. Even after printing their final draft, Shia and Kurd leaders had continued trying to win over the Sunnis, but officials said the sticking points had been federalism, the mechanism for allowing regions to devolve and deBaathification — the banning of former regime figures from public office. Sunnis vehemently opposed attempts by the Shias and the Kurds to carve out their own powerful federal regions, fearing they could be left high and dry while the oil-rich North and South go their own way. They also fear that deBaathification could keep their minority out of official positions. The new delay will come as a bitter disappointment to Washington, which had exerted heavy pressure on the factions to reach an agreement and dropped its opposition to a strong role for Islam, leading to accusations of a sell-out. The Bush Administration badly needs to demonstrate political progress in Iraq to counter growing domestic opposition to the costly military occupation. The Administration hoped that involving Iraq’s Sunni minority in the constitutional drafting process would help to bring it back into the political mainstream and sap the violent insurgency. But that prospect looked remote last night as Sunnis threatened to derail the draft constitution should it make it through parliament with the issues of contention unchanged. “All the history of Iraq’s problems is contained in this constitution — racism, sectarianism and secession,” Hussein Shukur al-Falluji, a Sunni delegate, said. “If they pass this constitution, then the rebellion will reach its peak.” “We will not be silent,” Soha Allawi, another Sunni Arab member of the drafting committee, said. “We will campaign to tell both Sunnis and Shias to reject the constitution, which has elements that will lead to the break up of Iraq and civil war.” The Shias would have faced little difficulty ramming the constitution through a parliament they control, but almost certainly backed off because the Sunnis could defeat the draft in October’s scheduled referendum. If two thirds of voters in at least three provinces reject the document, the constitution will fail. The Sunnis have such a majority in three provinces and have started a vigorous “no” campaign. The draft was also said to reflect a Kurdish and American compromise over Islamic law. “Islam is a main source for legislation and it is not permitted to legislate anything that conflicts with the fixed principles of the rules of Islam,” it read. But it also apparently insists that all laws must respect “democracy and human rights”, a phrase insisted on by America. Kurdish leaders said that they backed the agreement, saying that the provision on federalism was enough to satisfy their demands for guarantees that they would retain the broad autonomy they already have in the North. The Kurds and the Shias also agreed to distribute Iraq’s oil and other natural wealth “according to the needs” of the central Government and the provinces. The status of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk will be determined by the end of 2007. Last night’s deadline was the second after negotiators failed to agree last week, to the disappointment of the Americans. Parliament then voted to extend deliberations by a week.
Isn't that what the neocons originally wanted? Nope! Just pointing out the hypocrisy [edit] I don't know why we're arguing this anyway. This "constitution" is dead in the water anyway.
As women would generally comprise about 50% of the population, requiring at least 25% of the seats go to women in a representative government would generally not be considered sexist. IF they had said no more than 25%, that would be different. It's a form of affirmative action, i suppose...but we've had that discussion before!
i don't know what the "neocons" originally wanted...mostly because i don't know who you mean by that. i know the administration talked about turning the govt. over to the people. that whole John Locke idea. i don't know why it's hypocrisy. we may not like the leaders they choose...but they chose them. that's the very essence of democracy.
Just to clarify...even though i've posted positive comments in this thread...i want to be very clear: Bush is still a weenie! OK..carry on.
Article 109 Oil and gas are the property of all the Iraqi people in regions and provinces. Article 110 The central government administers oil and gas extracted from current wells, along with governments of the producing regions and provinces, on the condition that revenues are distributed in a way that suits population distribution around the country.
If they wish to make their dominant religion the basis for their laws...I dont see where we have any right to argue. What do we want more? a American puppet regime that will do nothing to curb the extremism in the region? or risk a Iranian style state that would make the majority of the native people happy....therefore negating the insurgency? IF Iraq turns into a Iranian style theocracy, then at that point it becomes the UN's task to encourage them to play by the rules....we can not and should not be trying to run their country if the people decide what kind of leadership they want. That is the only way Iraq will have any legitimacy in the eyes of the other Arab states. You cant topple the leader of a country in the name of democracy and freewill and then b**** cause the people dont do things the way you want. Not as long as you wish to be seen as doing it for the people's best interests.
Agreed 100% So lets recap. No WMDs - check A possible theocratic government more aligned with Iran than America. - Check America hated around the world - check An insurgency and terrorist organization that is still out there and more powerful than ever with no end is sight. - Check The precious loss of life and treasure that can never be regained. - check Can someone please explain to me the upside of this whole affair besides some arbitrary intangible like "security for America?"
Live action battle tactics training in Iraq against American soldiers -- easy in's and out's (no stamp or wristband required) through Syria and Iran after Al Qaeda graduation. [check]
THe possible upside is a democratic arab nation in the middle east. THe possible upside is the removal of a tyrant from power (please don't repeat the spin that Saddam was just some ol' quirky mad man of no harm to anybody...with maybe a few long ago skeletons in his closet). Doesn't justify the war, by any means...but, since you asked, that's the upside. The downside is everything you noted...more so if we leave 'em on their own now to let a civil war decide their fate. This proposed constitution seems relatively good, no? The elections went on ok? I don't see an Iran-type theocracy here -- unless they're left on their own now. Bushie got us into this mess. Now he has to get us out. And he's still a weinie.
Let me try. Saddam gone -> one less adversary for Israel -> less worry from AIPAC -> Safer America for AIPAC
Now you have Iraqi Christians in alliance with Sunnis against the domination of Shiites and Kurds. Birth of a new Iraq, or blueprint for civil war? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article307663.ece By Kim Sengupta Published: 23 August 2005 Iraq's new constitution, supposedly the blueprint for a democratic future, was threatening to drag the country into civil war last night. As Shia and Kurdish factions presented the document to the National Assembly, minutes before a midnight deadline, Sunni Muslims strongly opposed to its federal structure made accusations of "betrayal" and warned of a violent sectarian backlash. A vote on the draft was later delayed for three days in the hope that the sides could come to an agreement on its wording. The draft constitution is the principal plank of President George Bush's exit strategy from the Iraq conflict, which has made his popularity collapse among American voters. American diplomats, led by the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been frantically lobbying for it to be adopted before last night's deadline. But far from sealing Iraq's post-Saddam era, the draft appeared to be quickly fracturing the fragile edifice of government, with Shia and Kurdish parties declaring they were prepared to use their parliamentary majority to push through the document in the teeth of Sunni opposition. The Sunni reaction was immediate, with politicians queuing to denounce the move and warning of a cataclysmic reaction. Soha Allawi, one of the leading negotiators, declared: "We will not be silent. We will campaign for public awareness to tell both Sunnis and Shias to reject the constitution, which has elements that will lead to the break-up of Iraq and civil war." Another Sunni delegate, Hussein Shukur al-Fallu, said: "If they pass this constitution, then the rebellion will reach its peak." Sunni leaders said the text had dropped wording that forbade secession from Iraq; Kurdish parties maintained they did not want to break away entirely but wanted to keep the option open. There were also warnings from Sunni insurgent groups, engaged in a war of attrition, that they will increase their attacks, targeting those responsible for the constitution. But some militant Shias, including followers of the radical cleric Muqtada Sadr with their powerbase in relatively resource-poor central Iraq, are also opposed to federalism and yesterday renewed their call for "Iraqi unity". In a further sign of growing polarisation, several minority and tribal groups also said guarantees made about their roles had been changed in the draft document. A spokesman for the tribal umbrella group said: "The text of the constitution was destroyed in violation of what it had been agreed on. We shall now boycott the political process." Mohaim Ased Abdul, the chairman of the Assembly of Minorities, added: "We must oppose this because it does not represent minorities." Yonadem Kanna, a representative of Iraq's dwindling Christian community, said he expected Sunni leaders to start mobilising their supporters against the constitution. "Tomorrow on the street, on the ground, they will move against the constitution, that we can say for sure." There was also controversy over the role of Islam in a future administration, with the main Shia party insisting it should be the main source of law and womens' groups warning that it would lead to the denial of female rights. The most contentious issue in the document was federalism, which the majority Shia and Kurdish factions are determined to make the basis of government. The Sunnis, who have already seen their dominance under Saddam and previous regimes overturned in elections this year, are convinced this is a pretext for the Shias and Kurds carving out the oil-rich regions in the north and south of the country. A copy of the document, seen by the media, described the future Iraq as a "republican, parliamentarian, democratic and federal state" without specifying the exact nature of the federalism. The draft needs to be approved by a majority of the 275-member National Assembly, but Hussain al-Shahristani, the Shia deputy speaker, insisted it would be passed with a substantial majority. If approved, the constitution will be put to a referendum on 15 October; it can become defunct if any of the 18 provinces reject it by two-thirds or more. Jalaaldin al-Saghir, a Shia negotiator, said: "There is a time limit and we do not want to breach it. We had talks with our Sunni brothers. We cannot wait for all the time needed by those people to be convinced. We agree that the constitution, including federalism, be put before the people. If the Sunni Arabs do not want to vote for federalism, they can reject the constitution." Mr al-Saghir said Shias and Kurds had also agreed that no laws would be allowed to contradict the principles of Islam. He said: "In addition, no law shall be adopted that contradicts human rights and democratic principles. Also it was stated that the constitution ensures the Islamic identity of the majority of Iraqi people." Meanwhile, violence has continued unabated. Yesterday, gunmen killed 10 people, including eight policemen, in a van north of Baghdad, and two American soldiers were killed in a bomb attack near Samarra. As talks continued into last night, the talk of insurrection and of a steadily deteriorating situation continued to grow.
Iraq is getting a constitution, and the liberals are still turfing up every negative about it that they possibly can. That is what's amazing. A constitution is a big, big deal, folks. Interestingly enough, it appears the Muslim posters in this thread actually are happy about this, leaving only the American liberals to whine and moan, as usual. Yes, fans, the American liberal always knows best. Don't believe me? Just ask them...
LOL. How big big is it, bigtexxx-sized? Seriously though, texxx, aren't you at least a bit concerned that your Christian brahs and sis's in Iraq are getting short end of the stick in this constitution brouhaha?
