Draft Constitution Would Fundamentally Change Iraq

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
So THIS is what all of the thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died for? This is what untold thousands have been maimed for? THIS is what we've spent $200 billion and counting for? THIS is what we destroyed Iraq and our credibility for?

Let's hear the excuses. I really want to hear how you Bushies are going to BS your way out of this one.

WTFU and realize that Bush and his mob from Texas are the WORST thing that has ever happened to America. WTFU and demand accountability because without accountability these criminals are going to just keep running roughshod over your dumb, compliant a$$es -- and unfortunately ours along with you.

Draft Constitution Would Fundamentally Change Iraq

Sunni Demands Rejected, Making it Unlikely They Will Accept Charter

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 22, 2005; 10:42 AM

BAGHDAD, Aug. 22 -- Shiites and Kurds were sending a draft constitution to parliament on Monday that would fundamentally change Iraq, transforming the country into a loose federation, with a weak central administration governed by Islamic law, negotiators said.

The draft, slated for action by a Monday deadline, would be a sweeping rejection of the demands of Iraq's disaffected Sunni minority, which has called the proposed federal system the start of the breakup of Iraq. Shiites and Kurds indicated they were in no mood to compromise.

"We gave a choice -- whoever doesn't want federalism can opt not to practice it," said Shiite constitutional committee member Ali Debagh. Debagh acknowledged the Sunni minority would be unlikely to accept such a draft in a national vote scheduled for October, saying, "We depended upon democracy in writing the constitution and will depend upon it in the referendum."

Sunnis, who had complained of being shut out of talks in recent days, said they still were negotiating. "I don't think there will be a constitution tonight," said Salih Mutlak, the most vocal Sunni moderator.

Another Sunni delegate, Sadoun Zubaidi, angrily asked, "What about the principle of consensus? The principle of consensus is a fundamental, basic to the whole process. If you abandon the principle of consensus, you abandon the basis on which you're forming the constitution. We insist on being part of the process."

Shiites and Kurdish negotiators said the latest draft would be the one submitted to the National Assembly.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad kept up days of pressure on negotiators to complete the constitution, giving his sanction to the provisions on Islamic law, negotiators said.

Washington has been pushing hard to stick to a timeline on government-building that would allow for a significant troop withdrawal as soon as early next spring.

Key provisions of the draft would formalize an already autonomous Kurdish state in the north, under a federal system. The rest of the country also would be allowed to form federal systems -- opening the way for the demand by the dominant Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq to create a southern Shiite sub-state out of up to half of Iraq's 18 regions.

Sunnis and others say such a state would be under heavy influence from neighboring, Shiite-ruled Iran.

The draft also stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state and that no law can contradict the principles of Islam, Shiite and Kurdish negotiators said. Opponents have charged that last provision would subject Iraqis to religious edicts by individual clerics.

The Shiite and Kurdish negotiators also said draft calls for the presence of Islamic clerics on the court that would interpret the constitution. Family matters such as divorce, marriage or inheritance would be decided either by religious law or civil law as an individual chooses -- a condition that opponents say would likely lead to women being forced into unfavorable rulings for them by opponents demanding judgments under Islamic law.

It remained uncertain Monday how the National Assembly would treat such a draft. Those opposed to the constitution would have to muster "no" votes by at least two-thirds of the eligible voters in three provinces to defeat it.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
The response from the neocons on this forum is predictable and inevitable. But you know who I REALLY want to hear from: the FUNDIES!

You KNOW they're gonna be pissed.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
1,866 American soldiers dead -- SO FAR -- and all to transform Iraq into a theocracy and unite her with Iran.

I can't believe that Americans aren't filling the streets in Washington DC demanding George W. Bush's resignation.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
1,866 American soldiers dead -- SO FAR -- and all to transform Iraq into a theocracy and unite her with Iran.

I can't believe that Americans aren't filling the streets in Washington DC demanding George W. Bush's resignation.

Nah, the Chimp threw them a couple percent off their taxes, so they're bought and paid for.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
What I see is...

Welcome to the SSI... the Segregated States of Iraq

I see 3 factions (citizenry of) that will HATE this constitution for one reason or another and all out civil war starting.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
And George Bush sat on the set with Tim Russert on Meet the Press in 2004 and guaranteed that this wouldn't happen. Not suprising though...not suprising.

Shakes head....*sigh*

All for nothing.....it was all for nothing.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Taking a wait and see approach. If they deicde to go with this religious route it doesnt look very good imo.

Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.

Logical fallacy.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
It's basically returning to the three segregated factions that it was composed of prior to the Brits putting the
50 Lbs. of Sh!t into a 10 Lb. bag that they did back in the teens/twentys - retrohistory.
moving forward to 85 years ago.

Post Ottoman
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.

Logical fallacy.

Oh please do tell!

Iraq isn't America. This isn't 1776. America declared independence and fought a revolution with the aid of the French. America wasn't invaded unprovoked and occupied by a foreign military. The list goes on and on and on.

PS Just to save you the time, Iraq isn't WWII either.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.
Logical fallacy.
Oh please do tell!

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BBond
1,866 American soldiers dead -- SO FAR -- and all to transform Iraq into a theocracy and unite her with Iran.

I can't believe that Americans aren't filling the streets in Washington DC demanding George W. Bush's resignation.

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
The response from the neocons on this forum is predictable and inevitable. But you know who I REALLY want to hear from: the FUNDIES!

You KNOW they're gonna be pissed.

This is true.

I would like to see the reaction of the Religious arm of the Republican party and the religious part of the 51% that voted for Bush again.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.
Logical fallacy.
Oh please do tell!

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.

Where are you getting your information from? Reagan/Bush and Bush II have "swelled" the government in their terms more than all other presidents combined.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.

Logical fallacy.

Oh please do tell!

Iraq isn't America. This isn't 1776. America declared independence and fought a revolution with the aid of the French. America wasn't invaded unprovoked and occupied by a foreign military. The list goes on and on and on.

PS Just to save you the time, Iraq isn't WWII either.


We had French boots on the ground and the French fought the British elsewhere which helped us gain independence.

I think it is ironic that people complain at the lack of speed in a huge process like this while forgetting it took us nearly 8 years to form our own govt after defeating the British.

And for more recent occupation and govt creations take a look at Nzi Germany. It took ~5 years before west germany was erected and they had little issues with terrorism.


 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.
Logical fallacy.
Oh please do tell!

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.


And the new days when a GOP controlled government has added over 1,000,000 government jobs in the last 5 years. Hypocracy 101!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Genx87
Remember when the United States was formed its central federal govt wasnt terribly powerful either.
Logical fallacy.
Oh please do tell!

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.

Where are you getting your information from? Reagan/Bush and Bush II have "swelled" the government in their terms more than all other presidents combined.

The boy is obviously very confused.

He is not alone though.

Republican Talking points, Rush, Hannity et all and brainwashing have their brains thoughly and extremely scrambled.

I'll take my Tin Foil anyday, I would not want to be in their shoes.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: zendari

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.

Where are you getting your information from? Reagan/Bush and Bush II have "swelled" the government in their terms more than all other presidents combined.
Not as a % of the GDP.

Text

Your 30s socialist Dems doubled the size of the federal govt.

As you can see here, govt spending greatly increased in the 60s as well.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: zendari

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.

Where are you getting your information from? Reagan/Bush and Bush II have "swelled" the government in their terms more than all other presidents combined.
Not as a % of the GDP.

Text

Your 30s socialist Dems doubled the size of the federal govt.

As you can see here, govt spending greatly increased in the 60s as well.

Uh huh. By percent of GDP? But how did they do when you measure by increase in national debt???

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: zendari

The good old days, before the liberal hippies came into power in the 30s and 60s and swelled the government.

The founding fathers believed in a smaller central government.

Where are you getting your information from? Reagan/Bush and Bush II have "swelled" the government in their terms more than all other presidents combined.
Not as a % of the GDP.

Text

Your 30s socialist Dems doubled the size of the federal govt.

As you can see here, govt spending greatly increased in the 60s as well.

Uh huh. By percent of GDP? But how did they do when you measure by increase in national debt???

Is that any different that going by %of gdp?

As a raw dollar amount we are sitting at ~67% which is what is in the range it has been for the past 30 years. Even Clinton until his last days in office was in the low to mid 60s as a % of gdp.

btw your site is a little misleading. They show a debt of 10 trillion by 2006. At the present burn we should be no higher than 8.7 trillion by the end of 2006.

 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond

Uh huh. By percent of GDP? But how did they do when you measure by increase in national debt???

Invalid comparison. Between inflation and the massive economic growth period of the 90s spending is bound to be higher.

What we need is a politician brave enough to can the SS and medicare and the rest of the socialist programs, and the military as well after the Iraq war.

Text
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87

Is that any different that going by %of gdp?

As a raw dollar amount we are sitting at ~67% which is what is in the range it has been for the past 30 years. Even Clinton until his last days in office was in the low to mid 60s as a % of gdp.

btw your site is a little misleading. They show a debt of 10 trillion by 2006. At the present burn we should be no higher than 8.7 trillion by the end of 2006.

Kid, anyone who looks at the numbers and comes up with your conclusions is in a class with people who twist intel to excuse naked aggression.

You simply aren't looking at the facts. Look at the charts. The information was taken from Microsoft?s Encarta Encyclopedia and US Government data. How do you call that misleading?

You just can't live with the truth about who the real wastrels are.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: BBond
PS Look on page 122 of this .pdf file and tell me about the increases in the 60s. The were MINISCULE as compared with Reagan/Bush and Bush II.

Yes and as you will note. 2004s estimated % would have beat Clinton in 5 of 8 years.