Just quit posting in this thread, you're making a fool of yourself and can't even stay on topic.
Just quit posting in this thread, you're making a fool of yourself and can't even stay on topic.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Great to hear that violence is at a minimal level. 
Regarding the constitution itself - hey, if it's defeated, it's defeated. The nation needs to choose its own path and if that requires sending their elected representatives back to the drawing board, then that's for the best. I think that even if the system brings back a nay vote, that use of the system draws more people away from the use of violence and into the fold constructively.
Regarding the constitution itself - hey, if it's defeated, it's defeated. The nation needs to choose its own path and if that requires sending their elected representatives back to the drawing board, then that's for the best. I think that even if the system brings back a nay vote, that use of the system draws more people away from the use of violence and into the fold constructively.
What alot of people dont realize is they will be asking us to leave , in a year they will ask us to do a major stand dowm if they are not ready for us to completely leave.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
You have NO control here sir, and you're the only person posting who doesn't know who the real fool is.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
One very late draft had just that sort of wording included, the lawful/binding ability to ask us to leave and otherwise make it difficult to stay. It was mysteriously removed from the version that was voted on.
Does anybody know the basics of the constitution? I'd kind of like to know what this is going to mean for the future of Iraq.
Also a link/explanation of what the last minute changes were would be nice.
Also a link/explanation of what the last minute changes were would be nice.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
I would agree with that. A constitution is meant to be timeless in the sense that it should apply whenever. To mention stuff like American troops in the consitution is pointless, even if they are to leave. To mention stuff like the Ba'ath party and Saddam is stupid and ridiculous. Leave the politics out of the Constitution
I would think they are calling it a consitution for PR reasons more than anything else. From seeying it, it looks more like a peace treaty, than a constitution, and more than likely, it will revised when US troops do finally leave. The fact that it was even considered to be put in shows that even the Iraqi's who are working with the American troops with to have there own sovereign state, free of foreign occupiers/troops in there own country. As is there right as a now democratic states, as you hear the Bush supporters yelling over and over.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
No, you jumped to the wrong conclusion. The passages I saw didn't mention the US by name. They were both and specific and general at the same time, using terms like "foreign troops." As it is, the Iraqi's are trying hard to express their discomfort with American occupation. Some use bombs, others have been trying other routes. Either way, we should pay attention.
No ****** we should pay attention. Will you at least agree that what the insurgents are doing is going to keep our troops there longer than if there wasn't an insurgency? They are being counter-productive.
I have high hopes for the Iraqi people. I can't imagine what it must be like to be on the cupst of freedom after so many years of oppression. :thumbsup: for them!
I think everyone is concerned about that. One can only hope that the will and desire of the Iraqi people is strong enough to hold up.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
Yet we aren't paying attention. How many American's know, or care that what passes for an Iraqi government is quietly trying to let us know that they don't want us there? If you listen to the Whitehouse spin-machine, which most of the mainstream media gets its marching orders from, it would be easy to assume that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are just tickled pink to have us there.
I don't agree with the premise of your question because I see US activities in a different light. With several permanent permanent bases being constructed, the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia having been asked to leave and no indication whatsoever form the Whitehouse that we intend to leave (beyond empty-headed slogans "We'll stand down when the Iraqi's stand up!!!", etc.), I think the Iraqi rebels have very little hope of us leaving under any circumstances. Unless, of course, they make it too hard for us to stay.
Can Iraqi's fighting our occupation of their country be viewed as "counter-productive?" I'm sure many American's see it as such, so yeah. However, I support the right of indigenous people to fight, tooth and nail, any unjust and brutal foreign occupation. I'd be a hypocrite if I changed my opinion now because it's my nation doing the occupying. After all, we DID have the option of leaving them the hell alone.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
This may be the most recent draft in .pdf form. It's from the bbc and they're usually pretty sharp. No one knows what it's going to mean for the future of Iraq, and good luck trying to find a change-log.
Thanks for the info.
My pleasure. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it once you're done reading.
Here are more revisions that were reportedly read in the Iraqi Parliament.
http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=81&id=968
The bottom line is, the Iraqi Parliament needed more time to complete the constitution but they were rushed by the Bush administration in an attempt to exhibit progress. In reality the Iraqi Parliament put together a weak document that gave them the six months more they needed to complete it. Nothing in the document is written in stone. It will continue to be revised and ethnic and religious tensions will continue to increase.
This constitution and this vote did nothing more than give Bush something to crow about in the U.S. press.
http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=81&id=968
The bottom line is, the Iraqi Parliament needed more time to complete the constitution but they were rushed by the Bush administration in an attempt to exhibit progress. In reality the Iraqi Parliament put together a weak document that gave them the six months more they needed to complete it. Nothing in the document is written in stone. It will continue to be revised and ethnic and religious tensions will continue to increase.
This constitution and this vote did nothing more than give Bush something to crow about in the U.S. press.
I hate to break it to ya Bond but our Constitution isn't even set in stone. It can be (and has been) amended a number of times. There's endless debate about it - hence why the current state of the Supreme Court is so important - it is absurd to expect the Iraqi Constitution to be a document written in stone.
The US Constitution took 13 years before it was accepted by the 13 states, why people think things should happen overnight just cracks me up. The building of a whole new country now should take months? An army from scratch takes time no matter how fast you rush it, Senior NCO's take years to make and so do Senior Officers.
But it was a completed document when it was voted on and it was amended through votes, not through the pressure of an occupation force.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter