Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm actually curious about what I asked Beau - he's virulently anti-Muslim but he's happy that a new Islamic theocracy is being founded on our dime and with our blood. It's inconsistent. As far as the original article goes, I think Iraq will be a lot better off once we leave.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm actually curious about what I asked Beau - he's virulently anti-Muslim but he's happy that a new Islamic theocracy is being founded on our dime and with our blood.> Please point out where in the Iraqi constitution it states that only clerics can be hold the highest offices.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Please point out where in the Iraqi constitution it states that only clerics can be hold the highest offices." Again, misunderstanding things again, Dougie. Tom didn't say what you were demanding. It's well known that since roughly 60% of the Iraqi population is Shia, that the most influential leaders will tend to be Shia clerics. Since post war Iraq has almost no civil institutions, all of the major factions will take their cues from their religious leaders. Hence the Shia will dominate the new government. Anyone who's followed the events in the Middle East knows that Iran is keen to promote the political influence of their brand of Shia fundamentalism, from their own revolution to the founding of Hezbolla terrorism to the likely dominance of Iraq. Since the fall of Baghdad, the Shia majority has been very restrained in responding to attacks from Baathist and radicalized Sunni on their own people, because they know that very soon they will be taking over the reigns of power in Baghdad. Any escalation in the violence will only make our troops stay that much longer, thus delaying the day they take over rule in the new Iraq. Many elements of the constitution echo a fundamentalist Islamic perspective, so Tom's correct in his assumption that the US taxpayers are funding an Islamic fundamentalist government.
Originally Posted By ElKay Disneyman55: "If I said it once, I will say it a million times. Shoot the message and not the messenger. If all the defense you have against an article like this is to shoot the poster and question the writer...then it is a poor defense." You mean how the GOP has routinely trashed opponents RIGHT and LEFT? Like how Rove created a whispering campaign in the 2000 primary in South Carolina that John McCain was mentally unstable due to his captivity by the North Vietnamese? Or how he father a black child, when the truth was he adopted an African orphan? What about the swiftboating of a decorated Vietnam vet, when Bush couldn't prove he actually fullfilled his Air Nat'l. Guard duties? All I did was post Rubin's resume that showed that he was joined at the hip to the Bush Admin's. distortions on Iraq. I'll bet you'd still believe a tabacco spokesperson if they said there's no evidence that smoking causes cancer. Am I right? "Come on, someone refute what this guy is writing with first hand experience or an article from someone else." OK, try this: <a href="http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=336&fArticleId=2968088" target="_blank">http://www.themercury.co.za/in dex.php?fSectionId=336&fArticleId=2968088</a> " Iraq remains a country in chaos October 27, 2005 There is something absurd about a new constitution in a country where there is no state and nobody obeys the law, writes Patrick Cockburn I no longer go to see the aftermath of suicide bombs, gun battles and assassinations in Baghdad. It is too dangerous. Instead, the violence comes to me. On the floor above the room in the hotel in Baghdad where I live is the office of Rory Carroll, the Guardian correspondent. Kidnapped by gunmen last Wednesday, he was happily released 36 hours later in a blaze of publicity. Unknown to the outside world, a story without a happy ending happened the following day on the floor just below my room. This is the reception area of my block of the hotel where, behind a wooden counter, usually sits Abu Hussein, the friendly and efficient desk clerk. His son had a business collecting money from shopkeepers for whom he would buy scratch cards for cellphones from a Baghdad cellphone company. He would get a small commission from the shopkeepers and the company selling the scratch cards. Somebody must have tipped off a kidnap gang that last Thursday Abu Hussein's son would be carrying upwards of $50 000 (R330 000) in cash to the phone company. He was abducted by two carloads of gunmen. At first they demanded a ransom, but he told them they had just stolen all his money. The kidnappers let him phone his father, adding that he would be released the following day in a certain square in Baghdad. Abu Hussein went to pick him up. He saw a car draw up and his son get out of it and take several steps towards him. Then the kidnappers fired a burst of shots into his son's back and he fell down dead. Iraq is full of such stories of cruelty and blood. It is not true when George Bush, Tony Blair and Jack Straw say that things are improving. They are getting worse by the day. It was announced yesterday that Iraqis had voted in favour of the new constitution. No doubt this will be lauded in Washington and London as an encouraging glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. But viewed from Baghdad, there is something absurd about the idea that a new constitution - the rules of the game under which the state will be governed - should be taken so seriously abroad when nobody in Iraq obeys the law and in any case there is no state. Iraq is full of phoney milestones. The US government is congratulating itself this week on training 200 000 army, police and paramilitary forces. But half of the 80 000-strong Iraqi army consists of "ghost" battalions in which commanders pocket the pay of non-existent troops. . ." Here's a passage that pretty much sums up Michael Rubin's "in country" experience in Iraq: The extent of the anarchy may not be evident to American, British and Iraqi officials living in the heavily fortified Green Zone. It is a separate planet. I asked one Iraqi friend who lives there if he thought American officials knew anything of Iraq. He replied derisively: "They don't even dare venture into most of the Green Zone."One Iraqi political leader claims "there are ministers in the government here who have never seen their own ministries because they never leave the zone". The referendum on the constitution has deepened the division between Sunni Arabs, who voted "no", and the Shia and Kurds, who voted "yes". There is no sign of insurgency ebbing as the number of American dead reaches the 2 000-mark." The fact of the matter is that almost all of the US government officials are essentially enclosed in a bubble inside the fortified Green Zone, not travelling outside without an armed convoy that takes them to US bases or similar fortified compounds of a small minority of compliant Iraqi politicians. Baghdad is essentially Saigon in pre-1968 Tet Offensive, where US officials didn't venture out into the countryside of South Vietnam to see exactly what's going on and parroted the press releases generated from the Pentagon or White House. I think that's where the phrase: "Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel." was so often uttered. Last Sunday, "60 Minutes" did a report on the difficulties the US had in securing just the highway between the Green Zone and the Baghdad airport. Despite the efforts of over 3,000 US and Iraqi soldiers, there's still no guarantee that you wouldn't get killed on that highway. The colonel in charge admitted that his men were getting killed just to buy time for a hope that things would get better or the Iraqi army could take over, so the US could get out of harms way. That's doesn't sound like a very pro-active program.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <<I'm actually curious about what I asked Beau - he's virulently anti-Muslim but he's happy that a new Islamic theocracy is being founded on our dime and with our blood.> Please point out where in the Iraqi constitution it states that only clerics can be hold the highest offices. >> A theocracy is a government where religion plays a dominant role. You don't need to have clerics in the highest offices in order to have a theocracy. Islam is the official religion of Iraq, and no law may be passed that contradicts Islam. What's ironic to me is that the Iraqi constitution provides for more government-guaranteed social protections than our own nation does, and some of us insist that we are a Christian nation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Again, misunderstanding things again, Dougie. Tom didn't say what you were demanding.> Yes, he did. He's using theocracy to mean something it doesn't, just because that makes the situation in Iraq sound worse. <It's well known that since roughly 60% of the Iraqi population is Shia, that the most influential leaders will tend to be Shia clerics.> There's no denying that Shia clerics will be influential, but there is also no question that there are moderate and secular leaders amongst the Shia as well. <Anyone who's followed the events in the Middle East knows that Iran is keen to promote the political influence of their brand of Shia fundamentalism, from their own revolution to the founding of Hezbolla terrorism to the likely dominance of Iraq.> And anyone who understands the geography of the Middle East knows that Iranians are Persian Shia, and Iraqi are mostly Arab Shia, along with Kurds and Arab Sunni. Iraq is not going to become a puppet state of Iran. The religious aspects of the Iraqi constitution are about the same as those found in the Afghani constitution, but nobody seems to be worrying that "US taxpayers are funding an Islamic fundamentalist government" in Afghanistan.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Like how Rove created a whispering campaign in the 2000 primary in South Carolina that John McCain was mentally unstable due to his captivity by the North Vietnamese? Or how he father a black child, when the truth was he adopted an African orphan?> There's absolutely no evidence that this happened, let alone that Mr. Rove was behind it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The religious aspects of the Iraqi constitution are about the same as those found in the Afghani constitution, but nobody seems to be worrying that "US taxpayers are funding an Islamic fundamentalist government" in Afghanistan.<< I am. I think I've said so on this board, though I wouldn't have used the word "fundamentalist".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No I'm not.> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theocracy" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.co m/search?q=theocracy</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The Iraqi government is subject to the authority of Islamic law, Douglas. Islamic law is the benchmark of the legitimacy of any legislation under the new Iraqi constitution.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The definition you linked says that it is a government subject to religious authority. Since no laws can contradict Islamic law, then it is the true authority for Iraqi law.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Hardly. "Religious authority" clearly implies a clerical hierarchy, not writings subject to interpretation. You're really stretching, Tom.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Maybe we need a new term we can all agree on. How about we call Iraq's form of government Democreligious?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'd also point out that Saddam was "elected" time and time again. So was that a democracy?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm not stretching, Douglas. The Iraqi government is completely bound by Islamic law, period. It cannot deviate from it. It is the source of the law according to their Constitution. In our government, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In their government, the Koran is the supreme law of the land. That's a theocracy. The authority for their laws comes from religion.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy So Tom, are you upset with the Afghan constitution? Nobody on this entire thread has been able to dispute the information from the origianl post by the way. Free people who live in a democracy produce things, live better, and are MUCH less likely to produce little jihad suicide bombers. How does Turkey do it??
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >So Tom, are you upset with the Afghan constitution?<< If US money and blood are being spent to set up a religious state, then I'm upset with it. That's not what we should be dying for. >>Nobody on this entire thread has been able to dispute the information from the origianl post by the way.<< It doesn't need to be disputed. There are some good things happening there. There are also now 2056 dead Americans and the insurgency is still going strong. One doesn't negate the other. >>Free people who live in a democracy produce things, live better, and are MUCH less likely to produce little jihad suicide bombers.<< That's true, but generally not in a democracy that is imposed on a group of people with significant differences by an external force. India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and The Phillipines are all democracies fighting insurgencies.
