OT: Transitional Iraqi Constitution - WOW!

[Dutch]

Has anybody read this? To me, it is mind boggling to be reading this consitution about...Iraq. Simply amazing stuff. It will require a civil war to over turn this document and it's subsequent permanent document.

If it is allowed to be respected like most other national documents around the world, it will be the single most important accompishment the middle east has seen since the discovery of oil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113576,00.html

[Buccaneer]

Article 12.

All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.

Article 13.

(A) Public and private freedoms shall be protected.

(B) The right of free expression shall be protected.

(C) The right of free peaceable assembly and the right to join associations freely, as well as the right to form and join unions and political parties freely, in accordance with the law, shall be guaranteed.

(D) Each Iraqi has the right of free movement in all parts of Iraq and the right to travel abroad and return freely.

(E) Each Iraqi has the right to demonstrate and strike peaceably in accordance with the law.

(F) Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.

(G) Slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude with or without pay, shall be forbidden.

(H) Each Iraqi has the right to privacy.

Worth fighting for? I think so, such was the case in the US starting in 1775, through the Civil War and subsequent amendments.

[damnMikeBrown]

It will matte as much as the people believe in it. Seeing has how we scripted this for them while engaging in a military occupation, I'd have little hope for it's real value, no matter how elloquently written it is.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It will require a civil war to over turn this document and it's subsequent permanent document.

They are probably going to have one.

[panerd]

But are gay Iraqi's going to be allowed to marry? That is the question.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It will require a civil war to over turn this document and it's subsequent permanent document.

Hmm. When are we pulling out. From what I've heard about the political situation in Iraq, the over/under on the Civil War start date is about FinalPullOut Day +7.

If it is allowed to be respected like most other national documents around the world, it will be the single most important accompishment the middle east has seen since the discovery of oil.

Um. You do know that most third world constitutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on...see Zimbabwe, Haiti, Venezuela, Palestinian Authority for recent examples.

[Anthony]

if they have a Civil War i hope we drop the bomb on that entire region.

not just Iraq - the entire region. i'd want them all dead. i'm tired of those morons. let's send the boys home, close up our ports, and focus on our own national interests - schooling and strengthening our economy and fortifying social security, you know, the ole standby's.

i'd be really exhausted if they were to overthrow their transistional government and restart the chaos. i just hope our government knows better to just wash our hands of those people and never send another dime over there. fuck them.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

if they have a Civil War i hope we drop the bomb on that entire region.

not just Iraq - the entire region. i'd want them all dead. i'm tired of those morons.

Tell us how ya really feel.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Has anybody read this? To me, it is mind boggling to be reading this consitution about...Iraq. Simply amazing stuff. It will require a civil war to over turn this document and it's subsequent permanent document.

If it is allowed to be respected like most other national documents around the world, it will be the single most important accompishment the middle east has seen since the discovery of oil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113576,00.html

"A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice. "

Two trains on the same track headed directly towards each other. I can't possibly see how this section can work. You agree to be governed by the tenets of Islam, yet also guarantee freedom of religion and a democratic government? That has conflict written all over it.

That's an ambitious document, but I really fear that it'll be seen by the Iraqi population as nothing more than the US imposing its will and value system on Iraq. Of course they had no other choice though. You can't write a constitution for the country to be run by oil sheiks, religious icons, or military dictators which is probably how it'll be in 5-10 years.

I do really hope we see it through. It would be very sad to have sacrificed some good men and women for nothing.

[Leonidas]

So let's see, folks who dislike Bush are saying Iraq will have a revolution as soon as we pull out, proving our Iraqi policy is a failure, while at the same time demanding we pull out troops ASAP.

The French can bitch all they want that we need to pull out and hand over power now rather than later, but deep down they know we have to stay for the long haul to preserve regional stability and security. It's always easiest to bitch and whine when you aren't the one making the decisions.

[yabanci]

The US has poisoned Iraq, and anything they do in Iraq is seen with contempt. This is just a fact of life. If you don't like it, just look at what is happening on the ground there. Everything that goes wrong is blamed on the Americans, even the recent Ashura bombings. The Iraqi people are not going to respect anything written up for them by the Americans, because they believe the Americans are protecting only American interests. It's just jockeying for position right now among factions of various Iraqi elites. It will probably take decades for this mess to sort itself out, and the cost to American taxpayers will continue to skyrocket.

[Dutch]

It will probably take decades for this mess to sort itself out, and the cost to American taxpayers will continue to skyrocket.

Let me guess, it's not a "Blood for Oil" war anymore? Hi, Flip. Meet flop.

[ISiddiqui]

You agree to be governed by the tenets of Islam, yet also guarantee freedom of religion and a democratic government? That has conflict written all over it.

Many European states have an established religion and freedom of religion. So I don't see the inherant conflict.

[Dutch]

The majority of Muslims are very accepting towards other religions.

In Turkey, in a town near Syria and Iraq, they have the population that is 33% Arab, 33% Kurd, 33% Turk and 33% Muslim, 33% Christian, and 33% Jewish. And they all get along fine.

It's not as bad as Al Qaeda and Hamas would lead you to believe. But they will be the ones trying to make it not work, so I am not so quick to believe they will get their way without somebody throwin' down.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The US has poisoned Iraq, and anything they do in Iraq is seen with contempt. This is just a fact of life. If you don't like it, just look at what is happening on the ground there. Everything that goes wrong is blamed on the Americans, even the recent Ashura bombings. The Iraqi people are not going to respect anything written up for them by the Americans, because they believe the Americans are protecting only American interests. It's just jockeying for position right now among factions of various Iraqi elites. It will probably take decades for this mess to sort itself out, and the cost to American taxpayers will continue to skyrocket.

And which news media do you get your "facts" from? Also, how long were you over there among the people to get a very clear view of everyone's attitudes?

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Dutch

In Turkey, in a town near Syria and Iraq, they have the population that is 33% Arab, 33% Kurd, 33% Turk and 33% Muslim, 33% Christian, and 33% Jewish. And they all get along fine.

Dem some good numbrs dey teach you flyboys.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Dem some good numbrs dey teach you flyboys.

Lol.

[Dutch]

It's probably closer to a puzzle that I'll let you figure out, pad'nuh.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Many European states have an established religion and freedom of religion. So I don't see the inherant conflict.

I plead ignorance here. What democratic European country has a constitution that outlines that they will be governed both by the principles of a religion and democracy?

The inherent conflict lies in the fact that a democracy represents the will of the people, whereas a theocracy represents the will of the Church, e.g. Islam. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both operating in a federal law making capacity without creating a conflicting situation.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let me guess, it's not a "Blood for Oil" war anymore? Hi, Flip. Meet flop.

what are you talking about?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And which news media do you get your "facts" from? Also, how long were you over there among the people to get a very clear view of everyone's attitudes?

certainly not the government propaganda machine, but that's a good thing.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by yabanci

what are you talking about?

I think Dutch forgot to take his medication today. He hasn't been making much sense at all today.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let me guess, it's not a "Blood for Oil" war anymore? Hi, Flip. Meet flop.

It's possible part of the original intent (besides the increased mid east presence) was something along the lines of a "Blood for Oil" war (not defined quite as crassly as that though), but if oil was a major part of the plan, then the plan failed badly. I don't believe anybody of Bush's team expected this at all, especially after the initial quick Iraqi capitulation.

[Tryfan]

They only accepted it to hasten getting the US out as fast as they possibly can, so they can get on with the task of turning Iraq into a theocracy like Iran.

Nothing has changed.

[yabanci]

an Iran that's friendly to America.

[Tryfan]

Yeah they really seem friendly, don't they?

Nothing says "I love you" like a carbomb or two....

[yabanci]

those aren't the friends. I'm talking about the government, which no matter what form it takes will obey its American master on major policy issues, at least for a while.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I plead ignorance here. What democratic European country has a constitution that outlines that they will be governed both by the principles of a religion and democracy?

The inherent conflict lies in the fact that a democracy represents the will of the people, whereas a theocracy represents the will of the Church, e.g. Islam. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both operating in a federal law making capacity without creating a conflicting situation.

The Republic of Ireland is one for sure. Here is how their constitution starts :

Preamble
In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Ireland, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

I think Spain and Portugal may have been others, but they changed it a while back ago...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

I think Spain and Portugal may have been others, but they changed it a while back ago...

Also Italy has a very Catholic-centric constitution. But having the Vatican completely ensconsced inside their borders might have a little something to do with it...

As a little history note, the US was an occupying force at the time Germany and Japan wrote their post WW2 constitutions, and the GIs weren't very popular with the local population at that time either.

[clintl]

The difference between Iraq now, and Germany and Japan after WWII is that Germany and Japan weren't split into three distinct groups that don't like each other at all, one of which wants to use its majority status to impose a theocracy on the other two, and has a score to settle with one of them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by yabanci

what are you talking about?

How did the Anti-Bush crowd complain about the war? They said we were going to start a war to get rich.

Now the Anti-Bush crowd says we went to war to hurt the economy.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by clintl

The difference between Iraq now, and Germany and Japan after WWII is that Germany and Japan weren't split into three distinct groups that don't like each other at all, one of which wants to use its majority status to impose a theocracy on the other two, and has a score to settle with one of them.

Japan and Germany also were fully industrialized nations with successful governments in their past history. The Japanese acquiesced very easily when the US set up a provisional government. The other side of the coin is that German citizens were fleeing into the American zone at the end of WW II to avoid being raped and pillaged by the Russians. The Japanese also knew that they got lucky for having the Americans and not the Russians running things.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by cartman

Also Italy has a very Catholic-centric constitution. But having the Vatican completely ensconsced inside their borders might have a little something to do with it...

Ireland, Spain, Italy.

OK, maybe I should revise my question to: Show me an economically successful European country with a strongly religious constitution without large groups of violent seperatists or organized criminals.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Tryfan

They only accepted it to hasten getting the US out as fast as they possibly can, so they can get on with the task of turning Iraq into a theocracy like Iran.

Polling is somewhat unreliable in general, and this is from September, but it doesn't appear that that is entirely the case. http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19153...ews_detail.asp

Originally Posted by Desnudo

OK, maybe I should revise my question to: Show me an economically successful European country...without large groups of ... organized criminals.

Good luck.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How did the Anti-Bush crowd complain about the war? They said we were going to start a war to get rich.

Now the Anti-Bush crowd says we went to war to hurt the economy.

No, nobody said the war was so "we" could get rich, and I don't hear anybody saying now that the US went to war to hurt the economy. I hope you don't really believe that those are the arguments being made.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Ireland, Spain, Italy.

OK, maybe I should revise my question to: Show me an economically successful European country with a strongly religious constitution without large groups of violent seperatists or organized criminals.

Ireland, Spain, Italy.

If you're implying these 3 are not, you should know that there are probably less violent separatists or organized criminals in those 3 countries than in the US.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

if they have a Civil War i hope we drop the bomb on that entire region.

not just Iraq - the entire region. i'd want them all dead. i'm tired of those morons. let's send the boys home, close up our ports, and focus on our own national interests - schooling and strengthening our economy and fortifying social security, you know, the ole standby's.

i'd be really exhausted if they were to overthrow their transistional government and restart the chaos. i just hope our government knows better to just wash our hands of those people and never send another dime over there. fuck them.

That a pretty harsh statement. Reminds me of the isolationism that we had after WWI. Look where that left the world.

I would have to agree with one point...I do hope we can get Americans back here as fast as possible.

I would hope that when you say "the entire region. i'd want them all dead.", you are talking about the MEN in charge and the MEN (and some women) that are causing the death of the soldiers. Surely you wouldn't hold the same opinion for the women and children in "the entire region".

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

Ireland, Spain, Italy.

If you're implying these 3 are not, you should know that there are probably less violent separatists or organized criminals in those 3 countries than in the US.

Less as an aggregate population probably since the US has a vastly larger population than any of those three. Less as coherent organized groups that have been extremely active and impact the day to day lives of citizens, definitely not.

[fantastic flying froggies]

What violent groups are there in Ireland ? or in Italy ?

I'll grant you Spain has the ETA basq terrosists, but it has nothing to do with religion.

[bhlloy]

What violent groups are there in Ireland ?

Apart from the 30 odd loyalist paramilitary groups, and the real and the continuity IRA, who continue to firebomb, shoot and beat members of the "opposite" religion, not that many

Admittedly Ireland is a complete anomaly as the differences there have been magnified and wounds opened up again and again over a course of centuries. Spain and Italy as two very good examples of countries where there is a "state" religion and people seem to co-exist in peace.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Apart from the 30 odd loyalist paramilitary groups, and the real and the continuity IRA, who continue to firebomb, shoot and beat members of the "opposite" religion, not that many

No, no, you're confusing with Northern Ireland, which is just a province of the United Kingdom.

Ireland does not have all those groups you list.

[bhlloy]

Fair point, although the IRA typically is funded from and operates out of the south I believe.

[fantastic flying froggies]

True as well.

[ISiddiqui]

What democratic European country has a constitution that outlines that they will be governed both by the principles of a religion and democracy?

Some have already been stated. However, the United Kingdom doesn't really have a Constitution, yet the Queen is head of the established Anglican Church, which gets some of its money from tax revenues, IIRC. Scandinavian countries also have established Protestant Churches under their royalty.

They all function as democracies.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by yabanci

No, nobody said the war was so "we" could get rich, and I don't hear anybody saying now that the US went to war to hurt the economy. I hope you don't really believe that those are the arguments being made.

I do tend to generalize left-wing with Democrats so perhaps I'm confused.

The left-wing protested tremendously that the Bush Administration was sacrificing American soldiers (Blood) to get rich through conquest and occupation (Oil). The Democrats though, never really stated they didn't agree with that theory and probably supported the notion quite a bit, all though we all know it was just playing politics.

You suggested that our foreign policy was not worth the tax dollars.

The spin is that the Bush Administration is trying to make money (Cheney/Halliburton/Blood for Oil). Yet, the entire time the Bush Administration has suggested that the War on Terrorism won't happen overnight. It will be long, drawn out process. The left-wing spin is that Bush said we could do the war and get filthy rich off of it. That's what the protestor's organizer's were selling.

9/11 has to change the way people think. While we all realize that with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unchecked, trouble would brew when you mixed them together. According to the bad guys, 9/11 was supposed to be the beginning. But look what has happened since. The Jihad never took off, funding to Al Qaeda slowed to a trickle, Afghanistan's Taliban hardline regime collapsed, Al Qaeda strongholds turned into ghost towns, the Baath Party fell, Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the Libyan's have admitted to (hopefully) all of their WMD programs (and admittedly, I wonder if any of these new found programs used to belong in Iraq) and have left the nations of terror behind, a constitution based on individual rights has been implemented in the heart of the Middle East, the Pakistani's made public a scientist that was giving nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran (and probably Iraq) while those countries insisted they had nothing to do with clandestine acts regarding nuclear technology. These are amazing events that we should be celebrating or at least understanding that there's quite a bit of positive vibrations going on.

But anyway, all this has come at a cost. Not a cost in innocent civilian lives. While no military engagements end without bloodshed, the shear dominance of our warfighting capability all but resolved the issue of war within weeks. The real cost is money, tax money. Bush is not getting rich by fighting this war. It's an un-popular war. But like taxes, I believe it was something that had to be done. And in the long run, the peace that can result from this removal of fundamentalists and dictators from the dominant leadership role in the middle east can only lead to positive conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's better than letting these jerks run wild. Bush said it would take time and wouldn't be easy. He wasn't lying. Anybody that now comes out and says it should of been easier is simply being unrealistic.

If you read the Tony Blair speech, a lot of this will be more clear, as he is far more articulate than I am. And I do apologize for not being as well spoken as others. But I'm trying.

[bhlloy]

However, the United Kingdom doesn't really have a Constitution, yet the Queen is head of the established Anglican Church, which gets some of its money from tax revenues, IIRC.

Very, very tenuous links there. The Queen has no real powers politically speaking and her being the head of the Church of England is largely symbolic. Britain has got to be one of the most diverse countries in the world religion wise nowadays, there must be nearly as many Muslims as practising CoE in the country now.