Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/22/2005 10:50:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 10:51:30 AM EDT by nationwide]
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" not "Operation Islamic Iraqi Male Freedom"

This is BULLSHIT. We were sold a false bill of goods! It is an outrage and BOTH major political parties are to blame, Republicans AND Democrats!!! It's the lot of them, who stand for nothing more than creating wealth for themselves and their friends in the various industries involved in the war effort.

And to think... all the folks who were OUTRAGED at the comparisons to Viet-Nam at the beginning...

Where the hell is your outrage now???

cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005082213450002374168&dt=20050822134500&w=RTR&coview=



Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam -text


BAGHDAD, Aug 22 (Reuters) - A draft constitution for Iraq to be presented to parliament on Monday will make Islam "a main source" for legislation and ban laws that contradict religious teachings, members of the parliamentary drafting panel said.

One said the text, agreed by the ruling Shi'ite and Kurdish coalition over Sunni Arab objections, would read: "Islam is a main source for legislation and it is not permitted to legislate anything that conflicts with the fixed principles of its rules."

Shi'ite delegate Jawad al-Maliki said the wording was fixed.

It appeared to be something of a compromise after secular Kurds had objected during negotiations to Islam being "the main source" of laws. It was not clear how legislation would be subjected to the test of conforming to Islamic principles.

Critics have accused Shi'ite Islamists who dominate the interim government and parliament of planning to impose clerical rule in the style of neighbouring Shi'ite Iran. They deny it.

Kurds had complained that U.S. diplomats, who have insisted that women and minorities should enjoy equal rights, had conceded ground to the Islamists in order to meet Monday's deadline for passing a draft constitution in the legislature.

© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

08/22/2005 13:45
RTR


Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:51:33 AM EDT
I never thought any country in that region was worth our time. Kill the bad guys and leave.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:52:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 10:53:03 AM EDT by kill-9]

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Kill the bad guys and leave.



This is indeed EXACTLY how we should've handled Iraq and how we should handle each and every hostile nation over there.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:54:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:14:26 AM EDT by raf]
No, I fixed it period. Deleted racist/genocidal remark. Consider yourself warned. A repitition will recieve harsher treatment than a mere warning. raf

Fixed it for ya. Solve every problem at once.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:55:22 AM EDT
If they threaten us, go over there en masse and stomp them into the ground and come home. Repeat as needed. Nation-building over there doesn't seem to be working very well.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:55:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:16:14 AM EDT by raf]

Originally Posted By w4klr:

Removed quoted remarks. raf


Fixed it for ya. Solve every problem at once.



That would be a coc violation if I said that
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:56:25 AM EDT
Americans and allies fought to give them their country, not our country.
The ability to choose for themselves is all that we've given them, not a guaranteed outcome.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:56:26 AM EDT
Totally agree with poster..........

It's sad we allow loser politians to send our boys to die for nothing more then greed.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:58:12 AM EDT
Ok, everyone who is surprised at this, raise their hands.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:59:43 AM EDT
Uh, see, the main problem here is they want to base it upon islamic law....islam is the problem, how tough is that to understand?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:59:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Americans and allies fought to give them their country, not our country.
The ability to choose for themselves is all that we've given them, not a guaranteed outcome.



The freedom women are now enjoying in Afganistan was touted as a reason we need to stay the course in Iraq.

It is a proven fact, that pro-Islamic Gov't are regularly anti-American.

To allow a anti-Western gov't to evolve in Iraq spits on the graves of the very soldiers who fought for the very freedom now being denied!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:01:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Americans and allies fought to give them their country, not our country.
The ability to choose for themselves is all that we've given them, not a guaranteed outcome.



I'd say it worked pretty damn well when we did it in Japan in 1945......

I don't remember MacArthur asking what they wanted in their constituiton.

I'd hazard a guess to say that the Japanese are pretty happy with the way
it turned out in general.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:02:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:03:13 AM EDT by SHIVAN]
I'm completely conflicted if the Iraqi Constitution is based on Islamic fundamentals.

On the one hand, the world is much better without Saddam in power, and unable to regain power.

On the other hand, we have spilled lots of AMERICAN blood to create "Iran Light", if the Iraqi's move forward with this federalist "theocracy"....whatever the fuck that is.....

However, we all need to remember that our nation existed for more than a century and a half without equal rights for all. Which is also a highly valid point.

We've done the proper things, it's simply ended up fucked.

Not sure it is our place to un-fuck it.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:02:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Ok, everyone who is surprised at this, raise their hands.




will the real slim shady please stand up?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:03:10 AM EDT
Well there isnt a damn thing any of us can do about it..............Except Support the Troops!!!!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:03:45 AM EDT
Pretty bad when Saddam's bunch weren't the ones to come up with that.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:05:19 AM EDT
Glad I got out of the USMC after GW1, also glad I don't have kids old enough to die in this bullshit war.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:05:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Not sure it is our place to un-fuck it.




The time for that debate ended 1,865 funerals ago.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:05:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:08:33 AM EDT by WildBoar]
Radical Islam (majority of Middle Eastern Muslims) repsects and responds ONLY to brute force.

If we get attacked and we catch you on TV dancing in the streets and cheering them on, you are the enemy and will be dealt with. We come in flatten the place and go home. After about half a dozen cases like this the radical muslims will respect us and pretty much back off for a bit. Just in case;we make an anniversary day and drop a nuke on that date once a year to remind them who not to screw with. It can be dropped in the middle of nowhere, as long as we drop it.

Sorry but I feel that the only way to handle the WOT.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:06:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:06:54 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Guys, I sit here now in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, where many women are running for office in the upcoming Sept 18th elections (are they even covering these in the media back home?).

This government too claims to be "Islamic based" but is not what one might assume.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:06:23 AM EDT


We have forgotten how to win wars. Our military can win battles, but our politicians don't know how to win wars. The killing the enemy, dancing on his grave and keeping the spoils? No, we say "So sorry, how can we repay you?"

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:06:34 AM EDT
Who here ever really thought we were doing anything other than replacing one corrupt regime with a different "elected" corrupt regime? These people know very little else and can't resist the temptation of power. Our politicians would be no different if they thought they could get away with such blatant moves.

I haven't believed the crap BUsh has said about Iraq for quite a while now.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:07:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Guys, I sit here now in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, where many women are running for office in the upcoming Sept 18th elections (are they even covering these in the media back home?).

This government too claims to be "Islamic based" but is not what one might assume.



Not while we're there physically and still giving them boatloads of cash. Wait until we pull out and leave it "in their hands".
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:08:11 AM EDT
Someone call Chuck Hagel (R-ino) and tell him to get his head outta his ass!

assclown in question

"Republican Senator Says U.S. Needs Iraq Exit Strategy Now"


The war has destabilized the Mideast and created a potential Vietnam, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel says. Other lawmakers express frustration.

By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — As President Bush prepared to hit the road this week to bolster public support for his policies in Iraq, a senior Republican senator said Sunday that the United States needed to craft an exit strategy because its continued presence had created a potential Vietnam.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week." "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."


Hagel, the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a prospective presidential candidate in 2008, was among several senators from both parties who used the Sunday talk shows to express mounting frustration over the administration's handling of the war and the occupation.

A decorated Vietnam veteran, Hagel has been critical of the Iraq war for some time. But his remarks Sunday, along with those of other lawmakers, appeared to mark a significant escalation in the scope and breadth of the criticism of Bush and his administration's handling of the Iraq effort, some analysts said.

"It seems that the ice is cracking in a bipartisan way in terms of congressional dissatisfaction with President Bush's policy in Iraq. The silence in terms of directly criticizing the administration's handling of Iraq — its mismanagement — has come to an end," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. Although his independent centrist organization is affiliated with the Democratic Party, Wittmann formerly served as a senior aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

He noted that some of those on Sunday's shows, such as Sens. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Carl Levin of Michigan, were Democrats who had frequently criticized the administration over Iraq, whereas others were staunch Republicans.

"The change now is that Republicans for the first time will assume oversight of the administration's policy," Wittmann said. "There is no more patience for happy talk from the administration."

In recent weeks, polls have shown a rising skepticism over Bush's handling of the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 1,860 U.S. troops and injured thousands more. In their comments Sunday, several lawmakers made note of the public's apparent unease, even as they differed over how long the U.S. should stay in Iraq and whether it should announce a tentative withdrawal date soon, as Feingold urged last week and reiterated Sunday.

Even those defending Bush tempered their support with expressions of concern about what they described as a disconnect between the administration and the public over the U.S. role in Iraq.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former majority leader, said that his constituents, despite their "very pro-military" feelings, were beginning to question whether the United States was doing enough to help establish an independent Iraqi government and make enough progress to allow troop withdrawals anytime soon.

"They still believe very strongly in President Bush," Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press," citing recent conversations with frustrated constituents. "But they have a right to ask their elected officials, you know, 'What is the plan?' "

On Sunday, the White House said Bush would address such concerns in speeches this week, including one to a National Guard unit that has served in Iraq.

In response to the lawmakers' comments, White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said Sunday that Bush believed that "a free and democratic Iraq will help transform a dangerous region and lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren."

"That is why it is so important for our troops to complete this important mission," she said. "Our policies of the past only allowed the Middle East to become a terrorist breeding ground. Quitting now wouldn't help anyone except terrorist killers who certainly aren't quitting their efforts to target innocent people."

Three GOP senators — Hagel, Lott and George Allen of Virginia — agreed that Washington couldn't simply pull out of Iraq and leave a vacuum that might further destabilize the Middle East.

Lott said an eventual withdrawal "should be based on conditions, not on a calendar," and Allen called it "absolutely essential that we win" in Iraq.

Hagel, however, said that it was the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that was causing the destabilization, and that the administration needed to start articulating its long-range plans for withdrawal immediately or risk having Iraq become as politically costly as the Vietnam War.

"We are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we are going to have," Hagel said. He was particularly harsh in his criticism of Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, for saying in an Associated Press interview a day earlier that the Pentagon was making contingency plans for having more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through 2009.

Such plans, even if they are a worst-case and unlikely scenario, are "complete folly," Hagel said. "There's no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:08:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:15:56 AM EDT by Gloftoe]

Originally Posted By w4klr:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Please don't quote stuff like that.



Fixed it for ya. Solve every problem at once.



+1 Couldn't agree more.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:08:44 AM EDT
Can we go back to just nuking a city then telling them to give up or we will nuke another one? That seemed to work pretty good. We could do this and treat the whole middle east as the country that needs to give up.



Oh, tards: ... Im only kidding ...
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:10:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:

We have forgotten how to win wars. Our military can win battles, but our politicians don't know how to win wars. The killing the enemy, dancing on his grave and keeping the spoils? No, we say "So sorry, how can we repay you?"




I was listening to Alice Cooper, of all people, recently... he was talking about the Viet-Nam war, and how it, like our current war in Iraq became something other than what it was sold as...

He claimed to have spoke with a General who told him the US military could have won the war in Viet-Nam in no more than 10 days, had Washington let them. Cooper reflected that it appears to be the case today, as well.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:10:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:17:55 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:11:00 AM EDT
This whole thing makes me sick now . But not surprised. The important thing is to support all our troops there .But you will not see a pro american country in our life time. Thats just the middle east
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:11:08 AM EDT
Yeesh.....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:12:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:13:31 AM EDT by nationwide]

Originally Posted By raf:
Getting a little upset ofer a draft constitution strikes me as a bit premature. Let's see what the final version looks like befote we declare defeat.



They are past the deadline, and are working on "borrowed" time now. This draft constitution, was being PRESENTED to the Iraqi Congress


ETA: And the fact that Islamic law being prominent in the new Gov't is sufficient cause for alarm.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:12:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Guys, I sit here now in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, where many women are running for office in the upcoming Sept 18th elections (are they even covering these in the media back home?).

This government too claims to be "Islamic based" but is not what one might assume.



Take the time to read this.............
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:13:39 AM EDT
I think we should do it like roman times. Go in kill everyone standing against us. Enslave everyone else. And forget about being PC in a unPC war. I wouldn't want to have PC thrown apon me if I was there. I don't think it works here either.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:15:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hk940:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Ok, everyone who is surprised at this, raise their hands.




will the real slim shady please stand up?



Guess whats back... back again. Islams back... tell a friend.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:16:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Not sure it is our place to un-fuck it.




The time for that debate ended 1,865 funerals ago.



There is no debate. When they have a viable gov't it is no longer our place to make sure they can function. We transition the full battle groups out and leave a large base of operations there, like in Germany, Korea, Japan, Phillipines, etc......
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:17:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:17:25 AM EDT by nationwide]

Originally Posted By DLMan123:
I think we should do it like roman times. Go in kill everyone standing against us. Enslave everyone else. And forget about being PC in a unPC war. I wouldn't want to have PC thrown apon me if I was there. I don't think it works here either.



Shakespeare was right... "FIRST, kill all the lawyers..."
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:18:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By hk940:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Ok, everyone who is surprised at this, raise their hands.




will the real slim shady please stand up?



Guess whats back... back again. Islams back... tell a friend.




We ought to roast a pig in celebration!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:18:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By DLMan123:
I think we should do it like roman times. Go in kill everyone standing against us. Enslave everyone else. And forget about being PC in a unPC war. I wouldn't want to have PC thrown apon me if I was there. I don't think it works here either.



Shakespeare was right... "FIRST, kill all the lawyers..."



Amen, brother.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:24:19 AM EDT
You know after reading and thinking about it, which you guys should do too...............It can work.

Garand_Shooter and others in Afghanistan will agree.

The Afghani Govt is "Pro-US" what is hard not to believe that the new Iraqi Govt will be PRO-US ?


Give it a chance
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:26:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:27:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By raf:
Getting a little upset ofer a draft constitution strikes me as a bit premature. Let's see what the final version looks like befote we declare defeat.



They are past the deadline, and are working on "borrowed" time now. This draft constitution, was being PRESENTED to the Iraqi Congress


ETA: And the fact that Islamic law being prominent in the new Gov't is sufficient cause for alarm.



It's one thing to be alarmed. Quite another to be an alarmist.



You're quite right! I should have just emailed the article to MYSELF
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:29:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:31:49 AM EDT by ar15bubba]

And to think... all the folks who were OUTRAGED at the comparisons to Viet-Nam at the beginning...


why is it like Viet-Nam?

"Like vietnam" is an intellectually lazy phrase in this case.

Anyone who thought that there wouldn't be elements of Islam in the constitution is dumb. However, you should really calm down about the Iran lite stuff. You are spouting the liberal rallying cries right now, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:29:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I'm completely conflicted if the Iraqi Constitution is based on Islamic fundamentals.

On the one hand, the world is much better without Saddam in power, and unable to regain power.




Imo, better the devil you know. At least Hussein kept his fundamentalists in check

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:30:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:31:13 AM EDT by pzjgr]

Originally Posted By w4klr:
No, I fixed it period. Deleted racist/genocidal remark. Consider yourself warned. A repitition will recieve harsher treatment than a mere warning. raf

Fixed it for ya. Solve every problem at once.



I'm not sure what was said...but I can guess. I guess I am glad the "CoC" did not define things during WWII...I can guess what it would be reduced to...(ETA the War Posters for example)

"Have you hugged a Japanese today?"

"Most Japanese are lovely people, who deserve your friendship"

"Pearl Harbor, we probably deserved it...really the Japanese are the Nationality of Peace (NOP)"

"The Bataan Death March was really a nice romp in the sun, the Japanese Guards were swell"

I mean, really, when you are at war with something, whether it is a nation or a religion, can you really expect people to be PC?

I know, I know....CoC...but still....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:33:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:35:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

And to think... all the folks who were OUTRAGED at the comparisons to Viet-Nam at the beginning...


why is it like Viet-Nam?

"Like vietnam" is an intellectually lazy phrase in this case.

Anyone who thought that there wouldn't be elements of Islam in the constitution is dumb. However, you should really calm down about the Iran lite stuff. You are spouting the liberal rallying cries right now, that is nothing I would be comfortable with doing.




I didn't say anything about "Iran lite" that was some other alarmist

What is meant by saying it's like Viet-Nam, is that again, after a long protracted military engagement (1991-today) the United States military is again, denied the opportunity to do its job quickly and effeciently by POLITICS. And, by the ever changing "objectives" of POLITICIANS.

Spouting off "Liberal rallying cries"? Hmmm... I forget conservatives are never wrong and liberals are never right. I'll have to think about that. I'd rather side with the truth in this case, rather than an idiology.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:35:40 AM EDT


I don't think the latest developments look good at all.


Looks like the Shia and Kurd majority are going to "approve" a Consitution that the Sunni are NOT happy with. Part of the problem is that the Shia and Kurds are putting in a lot of local autonomy in, which Sunnis are worried will SCREW them, because all the oil is in the Kurd and Shia areas.

If the Sunnis feel like they are being frozen out of the political process, and shafted in the "new" Irag, where they Shias and Kurds get richer, and the Sunnis get poorer - it will only be a matter of time before we get civil war.

Plus, having a clause in the constitution that explicitly states that no laws may contradict islamic law - that doesn't really seem to jive with "freedom" per se. How welcome are Christians and Jews going to be in THAT country?


Perhaps it'll all work out - but to already see the Sunnis very unhappy is a bad sign, IMO.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:37:35 AM EDT
First off, no matter how much we want otherwise, Islam will ALWAYS be an influence in their governement just like the Judeo-Christian religion influences ours over here.

We are trying to sell the idea of a Democracy/Republic and in such a government it is touted that it listens to the will of the people. The thing we should do is let THEM do this, and sit back and guide them.

Any other way we are just a colonizing country and nothing more.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:39:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Skald:
First off, no matter how much we want otherwise, Islam will ALWAYS be an influence in their governement just like the Judeo-Christian religion influences ours over here.



Does that mean the Baghdad office of the ACLU will clear this little matter of "Islamic Law" up for us???
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:41:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:44:19 AM EDT by ar15bubba]

Spouting off "Liberal rallying cries"? Hmmm... I forget conservatives are never wrong and liberals are never right. I'll have to think about that. I'd rather side with the truth in this case, rather than an idiology.



I agree truth trumps ideology.

I actually think politicians are mucking up this war in many ways, but the one that burns me the most is our boys are dying at the hands of Syrians. We should royally f up Syrian with a bombing campaign until Assad reigns in his crazies.

I am just not as worked up about the Islam influence on the constitution unless they make a Cleric the supreme head of the country, which I don't think will happen. Iraq has a history of secular governments from their beginning.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:45:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 11:50:28 AM EDT by deej86]
Guys, DU is thatta way <---------------------------
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top