Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH! /SEEDS oF DEMOCRACY!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like

    FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH! /SEEDS oF DEMOCRACY!

    Here is an article from Reuters

    [B]US Concedes Grounds to Islamists on Iraqi Law [/B]
    By Luke Baker and Michael Georgy

    BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.

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

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

    [B]But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the", not "a", main source of law -- changing current wording -- 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."[/B]

    Washington, with 140,000 troops still in Iraq, has insisted Iraqis are free to govern themselves but made clear it will not approve the kind of clerical rule seen in Shi'ite Iran, a state U.S. President George W. Bush describes as "evil".

    U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been guiding intensive meetings since parliament averted its own dissolution on Monday by giving constitution drafters another week to resolve crucial differences over regional autonomy and division of oil revenues.

    Failing to finish by midnight on August 22 could provoke new elections and, effectively, a return to the drawing board for the entire constitutional process.

    But a further extension may be more likely, as Washington insists the charter is key to its strategy to undermine the Sunni revolt and leave a new Iraqi government largely to fend for itself after U.S. troops go home.

    An official of one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties in the interim government confirmed the deal on law and Islam.

    It was unclear what concessions the Shi'ites may have made, but it seemed possible their demands for Shi'ite autonomy in the oil-rich south, pressed this month by Islamist leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, may be watered down in the face of Sunni opposition.

    Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said [B]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.[/B] ( I Bet ya the judges on that court will be Mullahs! Kinda like in IRAN!)

    "The Americans agreed, but on one condition -- that the principles of democracy should be respected," Mutlak said. (Oh! Sure, But of course your majesty!)


    [B]So this is the "Noble Cause" our Boys are dying for???????[/B]
    Last edited by kennyo7; 08-21-2005 at 10:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    So what exactly is the problem? That their legal system would be based on Islamic principles? Ours is based on Judeo-Christian principles, which I'm sure annoys the crap out of you.

    This will obviously be a new type of animal, mixing democracy and Islam; that may not necessarily be a bad thing as long as the democracy part stays strong, especially, rule of law and equal rights and protections.

    So please - explain what bothers you so much, besides the obvious anti-war, anti-Bush diatribes. Earn some respect here for a change.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,768
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum]This will obviously be a new type of animal, mixing democracy and Islam; that may not necessarily be a bad thing as long as the democracy part stays strong, especially, rule of law and equal rights and protections.

    [/QUOTE]

    The difficulty will be in merging a faith with clear non-equality mandates with a Government form that mandates equallity. Perhaps it can be done, but you must admit that their is at least the strong threat of inherant contradiction is fusing Islam and Democracy in a "Democratic Theocracy" State.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]So what exactly is the problem? That their legal system would be based on Islamic principles? Ours is based on Judeo-Christian principles, which I'm sure annoys the crap out of you.[/QUOTE]

    First off, it does not bother me that our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian principles. It would however bother me if say we developed a l aw saying its OK for parents to beat their kids b/c the bible says its ok just as im sure it would bother you if or courts said we can not go to war with dim turrrrrrrists b/c Jesus says in the bible to love thy enemy.

    Enough about that.

    What bothers me is that now that Islam will be used as the basis for their legal system, women's rights will be even less than they were under Saddam. The only two secular countries in the ME that tollerate womens rights (besides Israel) are Lebanon and Turkey. Neither of these nations uses Islam as a source of legislation. This is concerning to me, obviously to Iraqi Women who are actively protesting and should be concerning to you as well. If Islam is used as the source of Iraqi Law, women will lose many rights including the Right to file for divorce, the right to own property, the right to custody of their children, the right to not accept their man to have more than one wife. This use of Islam can easily be extended as it has in other Islamic nations to ban women from walking alone in public, ban them from driving, force them to cover their heads etc. etc.

    If this is the type of nation you want, you should tell the families of OUR WOMEN who died in this war that their daughters died to create this type of nation , where womens rights are even less than they were before. You should also tell the loved ones of the 1800+ who have died that in this battle against terrorism, it was vital that we overthrow Saddam's SECULAR govt and replace it with an ISLAMIC REGIME.


    [QUOTE]This will obviously be a new type of animal, mixing democracy and Islam; that may not necessarily be a bad thing as long as the democracy part stays strong, especially, rule of law and equal rights and protections[/QUOTE]


    A HA! HA! HA! HA! That is the funniest $H!T I have heard in a while. Who are you kidding! Please man! Stop rehashing this same old nonsense that we hear everytime something the Bush Co. does goes wrong. You know you are only kidding yourself if you believe this garbage. How ridiculous!


    [QUOTE] besides the obvious anti-war, anti-Bush diatribes.[/QUOTE]

    For once , will you finally stop defending your nonsense by saying "this is just me being anti-Bush". I dont care who started this war. It was wrong, and is becoming a major disaster and embarassment to this nation. I would say the same thing if Clinton had started (and I DID Criticize him for invading Bosnia)!

    [QUOTE]Earn some respect here for a change[/QUOTE]

    From you? I dont look to get respect from someone who has not had an original thought in his head. All you do is re-hash the same old Right wing talking points. Its getting a bit tired and old. But most importantly the public is awaking to this. 2004 is over. The people were fooled once but the blindfolds are coming off now.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]The difficulty will be in merging a faith with clear non-equality mandates with a Government form that mandates equallity. Perhaps it can be done, but you must admit that their is at least the strong threat of inherant contradiction is fusing Islam and Democracy in a "Democratic Theocracy" State.[/QUOTE]

    Certainly. The "stone the adulterer" aspects are pretty worrisome, and at this point, its not clear how it will be resolved. Islam is not really known for its tolerance. I don't advocate writing their constitution for them, because doing it themselves will make it more respected and therefore more lasting. Maybe the US and other democracies should be providing more "guidance" on what works and what doesn't...?

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]First off, it does not bother me that our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian principles. It would however bother me if say we developed a l aw saying its OK for parents to beat their kids b/c the bible says its ok just as im sure it would bother you if or courts said we can not go to war with dim turrrrrrrists b/c Jesus says in the bible to love thy enemy.

    Enough about that.

    What bothers me is that now that Islam will be used as the basis for their legal system, women's rights will be even less than they were under Saddam. The only two secular countries in the ME that tollerate womens rights (besides Israel) are Lebanon and Turkey. Neither of these nations uses Islam as a source of legislation. This is concerning to me, obviously to Iraqi Women who are actively protesting and should be concerning to you as well. If Islam is used as the source of Iraqi Law, women will lose many rights including the Right to file for divorce, the right to own property, the right to custody of their children, the right to not accept their man to have more than one wife. This use of Islam can easily be extended as it has in other Islamic nations to ban women from walking alone in public, ban them from driving, force them to cover their heads etc. etc.

    If this is the type of nation you want, you should tell the families of OUR WOMEN who died in this war that their daughters died to create this type of nation , where womens rights are even less than they were before. You should also tell the loved ones of the 1800+ who have died that in this battle against terrorism, it was vital that we overthrow Saddam's SECULAR govt and replace it with an ISLAMIC REGIME.





    A HA! HA! HA! HA! That is the funniest $H!T I have heard in a while. Who are you kidding! Please man! Stop rehashing this same old nonsense that we hear everytime something the Bush Co. does goes wrong. You know you are only kidding yourself if you believe this garbage. How ridiculous!




    For once , will you finally stop defending your nonsense by saying "this is just me being anti-Bush". I dont care who started this war. It was wrong, and is becoming a major disaster and embarassment to this nation. I would say the same thing if Clinton had started (and I DID Criticize him for invading Bosnia)!



    From you? I dont look to get respect from someone who has not had an original thought in his head. All you do is re-hash the same old Right wing talking points. Its getting a bit tired and old. But most importantly the public is awaking to this. 2004 is over. The people were fooled once but the blindfolds are coming off now.[/QUOTE]


    I know you are but what am I!

    That's the only way I"m going to answer your silly sh!t. :rolleyes:

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    the people of Iraq will have less rights under the Islamists then they did under Saddam. Great work fellas.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]I know you are but what am I! [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the insight! Of course you dont reply with anything of substance b/c even you know you are wrong!

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]the people of Iraq will have less rights under the Islamists then they did under Saddam. Great work fellas.[/QUOTE]

    *sigh*

    Bit, bit, bit - these are not Islamists. Second, the Kurds and Sunnis (?!) are still against this, AND al-Sistani (head of the Shiites in Iraq) is STILL known to be against the clergy taking too active a role in politics. Therefore, I submit you are leaping the logic.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Thanks for the insight! Of course you dont reply with anything of substance b/c even you know you are wrong![/QUOTE]


    Lool - if you want people to reply to you, do some analysis, back it with some facts, give your opinion. You accuse me of doing the "talking points" thing, when you seem to be one of the bigger lib parrots around here.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum]*sigh*

    Bit, bit, bit - these are not Islamists. Second, the Kurds and Sunnis (?!) are still against this, AND al-Sistani (head of the Shiites in Iraq) is STILL known to be against the clergy taking too active a role in politics. Therefore, I submit you are leaping the logic.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah well I submit you aren't being realistic about our goals and our chances of reaching them. Quibbling over tribe names these guys are ragheads by any name and they are not capable of sustaining a liberal Western democracy. Period.

    That truth is bearing itself out as we speak. Bush was wrong. The PNAC was wrong. Regime change in Iraq could leave the region more unstable then when we got there. A constitution that upholds Sharia and not worth the paper it's printed on doesn't change that.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Lool - if you want people to reply to you, do some analysis, back it with some facts, give your opinion. You accuse me of doing the "talking points" thing, when you seem to be one of the bigger lib parrots around here.[/QUOTE]

    OK , This Just In.



    [B]Draft Constitution Would Fundamentally Change Iraq
    Sunni Demands Rejected, Making It Unlikely They Will Accept Proposed Charter[/B]

    By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Monday, August 22, 2005; 1:21 PM



    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.

    [B]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.[/B]

    "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.

    [B]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."[/B]

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

    White House press spokesman Trent Duffy said onboard Air Force One Monday that President Bush was monitoring developments in Iraq closely.

    "The Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shia are all there," Duffy said on the plane taking Bush to Salt Lake City, where he will address the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "We're hopeful. They're still working. They're still at the table."

    Duffy said the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was involved and "assisting" in the effort.

    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.

    [B]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[/B].

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

    [B]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.[/B] Opponents have charged that last provision would subject Iraqis to religious edicts by individual clerics.

    [B]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.[/B]

    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.


    [B]ONCE AGAIN, IS THIS WHAT AMERICANS HAVE SPILLED THEIR BLOOD FOR???[/B]

    [B]SO WHEN IS THE WORLD GOIN TO BE INTRODUCED TO THE NEW ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.... SORRY I MEANT IRAQ![/B]

  13. #13
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum]So what exactly is the problem? That their legal system would be based on Islamic principles? Ours is based on Judeo-Christian principles, which I'm sure annoys the crap out of you.

    This will obviously be a new type of animal, mixing democracy and Islam; that may not necessarily be a bad thing as long as the democracy part stays strong, especially, rule of law and equal rights and protections.

    So please - explain what bothers you so much, besides the obvious anti-war, anti-Bush diatribes. Earn some respect here for a change.[/QUOTE]


    Our country is based on enlightenment principles not judeo-christian, islamic sharia law is not enlightened!
    Womens rights is a major issue. There are several countries that have sharia law such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, You are only adding democracy to the equation, that to me is not that reassuring because if the people there are majority of religious nuts "might makes right in democracy". Our new creation in the ME will have close ties and similarities to Iran and your ok with that?

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know my remark concerning our country not founded on judeo christian principles will be attacked by the christian repubs, here is an excellent article that focuses on our godless constitution. Heres the link-
    [url]http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen[/url]

    So almost 2000 soldiers died potentially for a new theocracy we helped create, defend that conservatives! Cant wait to do buisness with them and they will surely aid in the war against terror!
    Saudi and Iran are a big help. lol

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum]So what exactly is the problem? That their legal system would be based on Islamic principles? Ours is based on Judeo-Christian principles, which I'm sure annoys the crap out of you.

    This will obviously be a new type of animal, mixing democracy and Islam; that may not necessarily be a bad thing as long as the democracy part stays strong, especially, rule of law and equal rights and protections.

    So please - explain what bothers you so much, besides the obvious anti-war, anti-Bush diatribes. Earn some respect here for a change.[/QUOTE]
    Democracy and Islam can not co-exist. Islam is a religion that promotes violence not peace.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,430
    Post Thanks / Like
    It just goes to show two things:

    You can lead a horse to water, but....

    the a-rabs can not be trusted to adopt the principles of the enlightened society that was envisioned.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]You can lead a horse to water, but
    [QUOTE]the a-rabs can not be trusted to adopt the principles of the enlightened society that was envisioned. [/QUOTE]

    And 1800+ soldiers had to die before we could figure this out??? Thats why you need to plan before you invade. Thats why you need to understand the dynamics of Iraq (like PAPA BUSH did!) before you overthrow Saddam.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,430
    Post Thanks / Like
    No one will convince me that saddam in power was a good thing.

    Having him in prison and his sons dead is a good thing.

    There were benefits to having a standing army in the ME the last 4 years, and that continues to be true.

    Yes, war is costly, and 1800 casualties over a 2-3 year period is a cost of war. It's not as costly as 3000 civilians in one day, though.

    Still the point of my earlier post here is that these a-rabs have not been trustworthy, and imo never will be.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Thats why you need to understand the dynamics of Iraq (like PAPA BUSH did!) before you overthrow Saddam.[/QUOTE]


    So true.
    Bush the elder had the chance to take Baghdad but as he said in his memoirs "once we took it, what were we going to do with it?"

    but no Bush the younger and his supporters had to "finish the job" his father didn't have the stones to do... and here we are, watching a secular Iraq dictatorship become a theocratic republic on the verge of civil war. Big difference.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Having him in prison and his sons dead is a good thing.[/QUOTE]


    But at what cost? Close to 1900 american soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands seriously wounded or psychologically destroyed, Billions of dollars spent and now what looks like the probable emergance of an Islamic Theocracy in place of Saddam's regime.

    There are lots of evil dictators in the world. We have always maintained a policy against nation building. Unfortunately for us we are now seeing why!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us