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
Posted: 8/20/2005 6:46:22 AM EDT
You aren't going to believe this shit. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, thousands of lives lost, all so we can create another Islamic Republic.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050820/ts_nm/iraq_dc



BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. concessions to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraqi law marked a turn in talks on a constitution, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline under intense U.S. pressure to clinch a deal.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam not "a" but "the" main source of law -- a reversal of interim legal arrangements -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."
...
An official of one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties in the interim government confirmed the deal on law and Islam.
...
Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that "contradicted Islamic principles." A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi'ite official said.

"The Americans agreed, but on one condition -- that the principles of democracy should be respected," Mutlak said.

"We reject federalism," he repeated, underlining continued Sunni opposition to Hakim's demands. Hundreds demonstrated in the Sunni city of Ramadi on Saturday, echoing Mutlak's views.
...
The Kurdish negotiator rushed to make clear his outrage at a deal on Islam: "We don't want dictatorship of any kind, including any religious dictatorship.

"Perhaps the Americans are negotiating to get a deal at any cost, but we will not accept a constitution at any cost," he said, adding that he believed Shi'ite leaders had used the precedent of Afghanistan to win over the ambassador's support.


Link Posted: 8/20/2005 6:56:17 AM EDT
Do these not negate one another?

"Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that "contradicted Islamic principles." A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi'ite official said.

"The Americans agreed, but on one condition -- that the principles of democracy should be respected," Mutlak said."
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 7:06:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By toddlerp:
Do these not negate one another?

"Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that "contradicted Islamic principles." A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi'ite official said.

"The Americans agreed, but on one condition -- that the principles of democracy should be respected," Mutlak said."



No. The legislators will be democratically elected, the legislators will pass laws, the court will decide whether the law is "constitutional", much as things are done here. The difference is that, in principle, Iraq will be a theocracy. Judges will have to turn to Imams to determine Islam's view of subjects of legislation.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 7:18:41 AM EDT
why wont the us support the kurds?
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 7:18:57 AM EDT
Sensationalist bullshit.

You are arguing semantics. Imams are as likely to disagree as to whther someting is "in accordance with the principles of Islam" as anyone else. They are simply throwing a bone to the religious types - final decisions will be through democratic processes, and through those processes the elected officials will decide what is "in accordance with the principles of Islam."

Besides, despite what Michael Moore says, this is their country and it is up to them to decide. To compare their consiturion with somehting like Iran is a ridiculous stretch. There, you have one man whose interpretations hold the weight of law all by themselves.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:28:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Sensationalist bullshit.

You are arguing semantics. Imams are as likely to disagree as to whther someting is "in accordance with the principles of Islam" as anyone else. They are simply throwing a bone to the religious types - final decisions will be through democratic processes, and through those processes the elected officials will decide what is "in accordance with the principles of Islam."

Besides, despite what Michael Moore says, this is their country and it is up to them to decide. To compare their consiturion with somehting like Iran is a ridiculous stretch. There, you have one man whose interpretations hold the weight of law all by themselves.

Nothing to see here, move along.



Nothing to see? It flat out states that their parliament could pass no legislation that contradicted Islamic principles. We all know how great, peaceful, and fair Islam is. Their constitution will require that of them. Requiring that all their laws are based on Islam isn't "throwing a bone to the religious types" it's casting in stone the direction of the country.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:31:33 AM EDT
Nothing to see here (other than Bush has sold out the freedom of the Iraqis).
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:30:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:35:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
if our purpose was to liberate the people from saddame and allow them to setup their own form of government why does this surprise anyone? They have no concept of democracy or freedom. It's literally a foriegn concept. we gave them the chance the rest is up to them. As long as they are an freind in the region when it's sad and done we win.




agreed.


What did you expect?
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:36:12 PM EDT
Whatever it takes to win the war and free up troops for Iran
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:36:15 PM EDT
Islamic law = non-democracy.

The two are mutually inconsistent.

Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:42:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
Sensationalist bullshit.

You are arguing semantics. Imams are as likely to disagree as to whther someting is "in accordance with the principles of Islam" as anyone else. They are simply throwing a bone to the religious types - final decisions will be through democratic processes, and through those processes the elected officials will decide what is "in accordance with the principles of Islam."

Besides, despite what Michael Moore says, this is their country and it is up to them to decide. To compare their consiturion with somehting like Iran is a ridiculous stretch. There, you have one man whose interpretations hold the weight of law all by themselves.

Nothing to see here, move along.



But I was asked by our President to support a war with a partial objective of a free, Democratic Iraq. An Iraq governed even partially by Islamic law is 180 degrees out of phase with that request.

As a Citizen, and a tax payer, I cannot support this end result, considering the high price paid by our Armed Forces.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:52:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:58:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

sorry but the ONLY way that would ever have happened is we'd have made them a new state. we are allowing them to be a soverign nation of their own direction. i didn't see this playing out any differently.



Did we not make them a new state?

We:

Removed dictator
Dismanteld the military and Gov't structure
Installed US Occupational Gov't
Installed Interim Indigenous Gov't
Constitution is pending
Permanant Indigenous Gov't will be elected soon(?)

Run that by me again about making them a new state???

Link Posted: 8/20/2005 1:13:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 1:28:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
ummm no they are not a new STATE of the USA. they are currently under a US appointed military/civillian government until their government is ratified and officially takes over all responsibilities. At no time has our Fed brought them into the USA... at least i haven't seen a new star added to old glory lately.

Neither are they an official territory subject to US law.



Ok... I took "state" to mean an independant entity, not one of the several states (ie. United States).

Additionally, they are operating under a freely elected interim gov't, not a US appointed military/civilian authority at this time.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 1:30:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Removed dictator
Dismanteld the military and Gov't structure
Installed US Occupational Gov't
Installed Interim Indigenous Gov't
Constitution is pending
Permanant Indigenous Gov't will be elected soon(?)
Allowed an Islam based constitution
Legalized continued repression of infidels and women
Encouraged radicals to take over the government legally
Created another Iran




Hooray for Operation Iraqi Freedom!!! The world is much safer now!!!
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 1:33:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 1:34:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2005 1:35:37 PM EDT by nationwide]

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Removed dictator
Dismanteld the military and Gov't structure
Installed US Occupational Gov't
Installed Interim Indigenous Gov't
Constitution is pending
Permanant Indigenous Gov't will be elected soon(?)
Allowed an Islam based constitution
Legalized continued repression of infidels and women
Encouraged radicals to take over the government legally
Created another Iran




Hooray for Operation Iraqi Freedom!!! The world is much safer now!!!



Add no INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms and I'll give you a +1


I'm not gonna cry "bait and switch" by a long shot... but any intellectually honest person MUST admit where we are to day is not where we were told we were headed.

ETA: Just found out a short bit ago my cousin who is an USAF O-3 is going back for his second tour...
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 4:19:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
sorry but the ONLY way that would ever have happened is we'd have made them a new state. we are allowing them to be a soverign nation of their own direction. i didn't see this playing out any differently.



I disagree. We COULD have written their constititution for them, just as we did for Japan. Instead, we will be left with a theocracy in Iraq. It may not take the exact form of the one the Taliban ran in Afghanistan or even the less severe model in Iran, but, in principle, if individual freedoms are made subordinate to the Sharia, it IS a theocracy.

And this, my friends, is one of the main reasons I declined to go fight in Iraq.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 5:37:45 PM EDT
Bush today came out and reminded people that the reason went into Iraq was to prevent another 9/11 and protect us from the Islamic terrorists. I fail to see how setting up another country who's laws are based on Islam is going to achieve that.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 6:35:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Bush today came out and reminded people that the reason went into Iraq was to prevent another 9/11 and protect us from the Islamic terrorists. I fail to see how setting up another country who's laws are based on Islam is going to achieve that.



Agreed.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 11:05:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2005 11:07:27 PM EDT by Adam_White]
There are no doubt hundreds of people on this board who believe US laws should be based on Christian principles. Still, you would be hard-pressed to find more than 5 who can agree on what those principles are - especially when it came time to agreeing whether a specific law was "Christian" or not.

The thread title is sensationalistic and misleading. Any law would still have to be voted into place, and as long as there is adequate representation, no one extremist viewpoint can dominate - THAT was the point the "US Government" made. For a theocracy to occur here, that democratic process would have to be circumvented - there are far too many players who are against it. THis is the VERY reason why the constitution has been delayed. To suggest that the US government supports a fundamentalist theocracy is an outright LIE. Heck, we could pull out now and get that. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid.

Useful idiots can be found on both sides of the political spectrum. Read the enemy's propaganda in this fight, and ask yourself if your actions and words support it, or nullify it.

Of course, 90% of this board has no clue about the divisions and debate within Islam, and wouldn't know a Wahhabiest from Hanifist or a Shiite, so I am no doubt wasting my time. Heck, I continually see the most absurd links and "facts" spouted to the point that I truly wonder if some of you understand critical thinking and considering the source. Here's a hint, if a site claims to be made up of former Muslims telling the "truth" about their faith, but most of the people writing articles have names like "John Smith," odds are it's BULLSHIT.

Sure, in a perfect world the whole country would want a statement of secularity written into the constitution (as in Turkey), but with half the US wanting "Intelligent Design" taugh in science class, let me just say I have little hope we can convince folks here to be much different.

FWIW, I too am sceptical about long term success in this country, but that does not change the fact that the basis for this thread is sensationalistic BS, however you try to spin it.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 11:11:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

...And this, my friends, is one of the main reasons I declined to go fight in Iraq.



Whatever you can say to convince yourself, as long as it helps you sleep at night.

We are in a protracted war with Genuine Al-Queada funded and educatre extremists (not so many Baathist (FRE) types here where I am), who are trying to subvert the consitutional process. I doubt they would if they were getting their way.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:35:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
To suggest that the US government supports a fundamentalist theocracy is an outright LIE.



Whatever you can say to convince yourself, as long as it helps you sleep at night.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:24:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
To suggest that the US government supports a fundamentalist theocracy is an outright LIE.



Whatever you can say to convince yourself, as long as it helps you sleep at night.



+1. that statement could only come from a blind sheep.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:43:33 AM EDT
It is their freaking country! if they want Islamic lawe as long as it is friendly to the US, fine, look at Turkey...I would rather have afriendly Islamic state, that shows the world..we don't own them. ALso they have to supply us with cheap oil.

If we act like Crusaders, we give the fundamentalists good propaganda.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:53:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
if our purpose was to liberate the people from saddame and allow them to setup their own form of government why does this surprise anyone? They have no concept of democracy or freedom. It's literally a foriegn concept. we gave them the chance the rest is up to them. As long as they are an freind in the region when it's sad and done we win.



Nah, it's just BS. It's like ETH saying this is a Christian nation.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:25:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 10:26:00 AM EDT by kill-9]
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.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:32:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005082213450002374168&dt=20050822134500&w=RTR&coview=

Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam -text



So in other words, we have lost this war too?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:42:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 10:46:58 AM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
You aren't going to believe this shit. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, thousands of lives lost, all so we can create another Islamic Republic.



And they didnt see this happening? LOL

Anyone with an IQ over 100 saw this comming. After living under a secular ruler such as Saddam, the culties were foaming at the change to set up a theocracy. The whole region is willfully ignorant and prefers to be that way.

Its not going to be like Iran, Well not yet, wait until we reduce our numbers (we will NEVER completetly withdraw) Iran will back the Shia and then separate from the rest of Iraq. The Kurds will probably keep their area all though Israel and Turkey will probably be pissed, still. Sunnis will ALWAYS be a thorn in the side of any real progress in Iraq.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:43:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Bush today came out and reminded people that the reason went into Iraq was to prevent another 9/11 and protect us from the Islamic terrorists.



Sigh.

I guess when you have a list of reasons for the
war, you can pick and choose which reason is
"the" reason depending on the current climate.

This is tiring. I wish we would just say that the
reason we went to Iraq is to establish a forward
staging base in the middle east allowing us to
remove forces from SA and draw down forces in
Europe.

This constantly shifting justification is just fueling
the libs.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:52:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:
It is their freaking country! if they want Islamic lawe as long as it is friendly to the US, fine, look at Turkey...I would rather have afriendly Islamic state, that shows the world..we don't own them. ALso they have to supply us with cheap oil.

If we act like Crusaders, we give the fundamentalists good propaganda.



Turkey isnt really an Islamic State. Actually in they broke away from the middle easter islamic way of life many years ago. They are wannabe Euros.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:55:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:
It is their freaking country! if they want Islamic lawe as long as it is friendly to the US, fine, look at Turkey...I would rather have afriendly Islamic state, that shows the world..we don't own them. ALso they have to supply us with cheap oil.

If we act like Crusaders, we give the fundamentalists good propaganda.



I agree its their country and they can do with it as they please. I hope they remain an ally to the US but I wouldnt count on it. Any Islamic theocracy is really just tolerant of the US as long as it benefits them, not a true ally.

BTW we will always be in Iraq, to the rest of the Islamic world, we own them. The US is enemy #1 in radical,Islam and radical islam is the #1 version of Islam preached over there.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:57:30 AM EDT
It sounds like the Kurds were sold out again
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:02:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
This constantly shifting justification is just fueling
the libs.



And eroding support from the base...
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:14:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
i'll go on record as saying within another 30 years there is a good chance saddam ver 2.0 will occur.



Yep. If this thing plays out badly, WE'LL probably install him, and it might not take 30 years. All the King's horses.....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:16:30 AM EDT
I shall draft the ARFCOM resolution this week supporting Islamic law in Iraq.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:17:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dpmmn:
It sounds like the Kurds were sold out again



Yup, those were the ONLY true allies we had in that area. We should have wiped the shia and sunni our completely and let the Kurds have Iraq. We would have to keep Turkey in check though.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:15:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Bush today came out and reminded people that the reason went into Iraq was to prevent another 9/11 and protect us from the Islamic terrorists.



Sigh.

I guess when you have a list of reasons for the
war, you can pick and choose which reason is
"the" reason depending on the current climate.

This is tiring. I wish we would just say that the
reason we went to Iraq is to establish a forward
staging base in the middle east allowing us to
remove forces from SA and draw down forces in
Europe.

This constantly shifting justification is just fueling
the libs.




Shifting justification?

That has been THE justification since day 1.

The media ficused on WMD's because that was our worst case scenario for how Iraq might lead to the next major terrorist attack (whether directly or through proxy), and the current talk of freedom and democracy is to establish conditions where terrorists cannot get a foothold (consider our hard-learned lesson after the Soviets got kicked out of Afghanistan) - but it has ALL BEEN FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT PREVENTING ANOTHER ATTACK on the US.

The ONLY other "reasons" kicked about have been by the leftwing extremists, and thay have been the all-too-common "for oil" and the oft-spoken to discredit the war (despite that NOT being why we invaded) supposed belief by "freepers" that Hussein was directly involved in 9/11.

Where DO you people get your news?

FWIW, even a Shia theocracy would be better than Iraq under Hussein - It is the Wahabbiests that have inspired most of our recent terror problems. Though such a theocracy won't happen here short of an all out civil war, despite the naysaying of Chicken Littles here on arfcom.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:13:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 2:13:54 AM EDT by TheCynic]

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
This constantly shifting justification is just fueling
the libs.



Shifting justification?

That has been THE justification since day 1.



Bullshit.

Listen to the speaches of the President, Vice
President, SoS Rice, and SoD Rumsfeld.

- WMD
- Kill them there so they don't kill us here.
- Terrorist training camps
- Bring a stable Democracy to the region
- Oppressed women
- Throwing out the UN inspectors

Those are just the ones that I can think of
off the top of my head. My point is to just
pick a message and stick with it. Public
relations 101.

What really pisses me off is when someone in
the administration is being interviewed and
they are confronted about the lack of WMD,
they'll shift focus and say something like
"You know that Saddam had Rape Rooms,
right?"
Top Top