Bremer will veto any Islamic constitution in Iraq.

We want a democracy there as long as we have the power to tell them they can't have one.

 

and again say why ur being terrirosit attacked!!

 

Re: Re: Bremer will veto any Islamic constitution in Iraq.

Wow, that is a loaded post if I ever saw one. We need to keep our cool and try to add something, next time.

In this event, any "interim constitution" should reflect the US desires and those of the Iraqi people. We did free them, right? Heck, we did also free Kuwait, also. Kuwait isn't democratic, ooops. I guess your nation also faces terror attacks, so we need to find solutions together.

Hey, it is a hard decision. The key here is the rush to get Iraq back to the Iraqis. There are Christians in Iraq, right? Maybe we (and I know there are references to religion) want to find a secular govt in Iraq where the basis for rule is not given to the people by any "God".

This tag interim shows a sign of a rush job. We have a govt there. They need to create the guidelines and Islamic Law is a known structure. The thing, we as Westerners have to consider, is the role women may play in such a structure. No need to rush when it took the USA many years to decide on a constitution. In fact, it could be said that even with some give and take, this could lead to unrest down the road.

There are religious influence, but also some rural/city issues. There are different divisions within said religion and even some historical conflicts within the nation. The council itself is to reflect these issues, and thus, we have some members calling for their interests to not only be addressed, but be made the strongest voice.

I mean, today we bring out the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" example and next week we may say that we allowed a Taliban style of govt.

 

It's going to be funny watching folks like Garcia, Karl, Alex, etc. respond to Iraq's emerging "democracy." They've already so perfected Doublethink that they now know that is/was the real reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place. So when it becomes clear that we have absolutely ZERO interest in seeing or helping Iraq become democratic, we should see some cool smoke signals coming out of their ears.

 

Great, I try and think outloud and get pegged.

Do you have any solutions?
I'm in a good mood, instead of solutions (they are not easy), could you at least acknowledge some of the stepping stones we need to cross before Iraq goes back into the hands of Iraq?

I mean, no matter the result, someone is going to feel screwed. They may feel screwed enough to continue the violence, even at schools rebuilt to help the people.

Even if you say that we never should have gone to war, that is fair, but where is the solution or factors involved in said solutions I asked for?

Voting out Bush is a step, not a sloution, btw.

Heck, for poops and giggles, why not try and address where my thinking is flawed? These are real and dynamic issues. The presidential election aside, this is an issue that means something to me knowing that we broke it and now have to buy it. If you'd be real to your feelings, you would also include our real cost of rebuilding the nation.

 

Fair enough, Garcia. There was no need for the cheap shot. Unfortunately, I'm behind in packing/cleaning and I leave for vacation at 6am tomorrow, so I can't spend the time to ponder how I'd handle reconstruction from here out. God, it's such a mess I wouldn't know where to begin anyway. I can't honestly see spending all that much time trying to be creative and intelligent on the problem anyway, though, since it surely is not what will be done, and the variables will have changed by the time I come up with anything half decent.

 

Re: Re: Re: Bremer will veto any Islamic constitution in Iraq.

man seriously the american soldiers in the middle east are getting on my nerves know!!! i hate them!! anyways back to the point the role of women isn islam is just like the role of men its the tradition that keeping us between four walls!! but its not like that anymore that was before in kuwait women have 75% percent of the rgihts and we are gaining more right everday!! so its not really that big of a problem and i think the iraqi women are very similair to the kuwaiti women when it comes to rights (well close enough)
. yah there is loads of christians in iraq but stil the majority are muslims and u have to know that iraq out of all the middle east counrties (and saudia and maybe qatar), have a lot of people who r very religious!! and they would not allow any rule except for islamic rules i know them!!! believe me i know how they think!!
man i dont think americans really care what happens to iraq, the americans are in a muddle they put their selfs in. they wouldnt be able to pull anything off (no offense).

 

Great responses.

So, I'd guess the best solution is to get out and allow Iraq to decide. Saddam is gone, but security is still an issue. I'd agree that the US soldiers can't bring security when they themselves are the targets.

I'd get out and allow the power vaccum run its course. If the US doesn't like what comes, at least they can always say they got rid of Saddam, who (the US says) was a threat to the USA. If the new power structure threatens the USA, like maybe an Iran does (ie: not directly), then they could always re-invade.

In the end, "the Iraqi people" will have little influence, unless they themselves are willing to fight for it. Be it civil unrest or somehow working to get real democratic elections, be it based on some Islamic Law, they may end up with the short end of this whole deal. This is something just about a given in the current situation.

In the end, this (get out now, were you aren't welcome) plan would make most people in the USA happy as well.

In a related question, what role would anyone accpet for the USA, or at least US corporations to rebuild Iraq? What political role should the USA in Iraq and the region?

I would guess military bases would be too much. Should the USA have any influence in the region?

 

What? how about the oil? the oil?

 

This is the biggest reason I didn't want to be in Iraq - its a no win situation, literally. US soldiers cannot be Iraq's police force indefinitely. First, it'll be too expensive. Second, the longer we stay the longer Iraq seems like a protectorate. It can't work, obviously.

Yes, but.....there has to be something more we can do! I have the feeling we're standing in a small kitchen with a boiling pot, but the knob on the stove is broken. Walking away won't really help, because it'll delay the problem. We might as well try something before it boils over.
Simply giving it to the power vacuum will immediately create a war between the armed groups - the Kurds will retreat to the hills while the Shiites will have a large contingent pushing for Sharia.
That's the most frustrating part of this situation to me. This is similar to Iran, but in Iran a theocracy was hardly preordained - the socialist/Marxists did just as much to throw down the Shah, since it was a very nationalist movement. Khomeini was a nobody before the revolution, but he was a much better politician than he was a scholar. The modern day Lenin, although more of a darkhorse. In Iran there were at least competing ideologies. But now in Iraq, we have a power vacuum and an ideological vacuum too, but only two real ideologies - dictatorship and Sharia. Because Saddam repressed religion so brutally and absolutely, it became the de facto sign of resistance and identity - now its THE most important issue in the minds of many.
I don't think we can wash our hands of this mess. We broke it, we should buy it. Or rent it, at least.

True. Being invaded is rarely a good thing I think it all depends how we handle this. I haven't lost ALL hope.

What's my solution, in other words. Fair enough. I think giving it to the UN as soon as humanly possible is a good step. First, the UN isn't nearly as hated as we are (UN rarely lobs missiles at people), they'll bring some legitimacy, and even if the majority of the troops they use will be US ones, it will lend the occupation a veneer or respectability. Lets face it, no Iraqi is deathly afraid of the UN taking over their country.
Then I'd try and hold elections of some sort, and see what happens.
Ultimately, however, I think the country might have to be divided, even if that means Turkey will scream its head off. However, we no longer need them as much, and they weren't exactly helpful during this latest war. A bit of a warning shot accross their bow that they'd better maintain friendly relations with us instead of slinking off into the EU camp, since they're not wanted there.

It can't not - the oil's there. Like it or not, we need the stuff. And also a theocratic revolution in Iraq will make a whole bunch of people mighty anxious, much like Iran did in '79. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

 

im not suggesting that we should leave it to the Iraqi’s. im just saying that the Americans whatever they do they want be able to stabilize iraq!!
“If the US doesn't like what comes, at least they can always say they got rid of Saddam, who (the US says) was a threat to the USA. If the new power structure threatens the USA, like maybe an Iran does (ie: not directly), then they could always re-invade. “ is that all u care about the usa!! Im sorry to say this but the Americans in this region are getting on my nerves all u care about is urselfs!!! There is other people in this world!! Uhhhh
the Arab world is not expecting the usa to rebuild iraq but they are expecting the usa to at least keep Iraq secure before they leave (and they are expecting to leave really fast). If they have a political role then again the Arab countries are going to get really annoyed. (but who cares u guys are going to do it anyways and its not like they aren’t pissed at u in the first place)
they usa shouldn’t have any influence in this region!! Don’t they have enough influence already!!

 

Hi chocolate,

Please remember that the opinions expressed in this thread and on BigSoccer do not represent most American's thinking about Iraq or our administration's thinking about Iraq. I am not sure why the Iraqi council has said it wants to base it's law on a strict interpretation of the Koran. I suspect that they would like to get in the good graces of the shiites. The US has to make sure that all the laws are something that all Iraqis can follow.

Paul Bremer has been clear that it is desirable that the law be inspired by the Koran. I think most Iraqis would be happy with that. In the short term, while America is there, we have to have laws that all Iraqis agree with. They must be simple and clear like laws against robbery, murder, etc. In the long term, the law should be based upon whatever the final government of Iraq decides.

America didn’t want to "just get rid of Saddam". America also wants a stable democratic government in Iraq. Whatever way the Iraqis figure out how to do that is fine with us.

 

Well, the Arabs certainly did a bang up job supporting Saddam in the 80s - so what do you want from us?
All that money from the houses of Saud and Al-Sabah went pretty far to fund Saddam's war machine. And now you tell us that's all we care about?

Sure. Like those poor Iraqis. So I'll be waiting for the Al-Sabah to donate their billions to the Iraqi relief efforts.
If we really only cared about ourselves, we'd have been out of Iraq months ago. So stuff it.

Oh, so you want us to leave really fast, but keep it secure? Isn't that like asking us to walk while standing still?

Well, if we could trust you to play nice with each other, and especially with Israel, we'd need a lot less power there. Tell me, were you complaining about all that American power in '91 when Iraq inavded Kuwait?

 

I left that part out because it sounded too "Bush Soundbite-ish" if you know what I mean.

Sure, I heard it a million times. They even expect(ed) this new "democracy" in Iraq to be a spring-board throughout the region. Time will tell, but these "reasons" seem to have been created after the fact and/or changed as the results have not come.

I focused on "getting rid of Saddam" because that is the standard answer these guys are giving. Being an election year, the timetable is two-fold (Iraqi set date and the election). No matter who questions the need for this war, the admin answer is..."Well, would you think Iraq is better off if Saddam were still there?" Then, the focus is turned from a failed Democratic society in Iraq (so far) to a person who obviously hates our freedoms in the USA and is a Saddam lover.

In any event, Bremer said today that the timetable for a June 30th "handover" is set in stone.

 

I know what you are trying to say and if I wanted to tangle with you, I would have quoted you in context. I just pulled that phrase out because I wanted to tangle with the idea that there was "just" one purpose to the invasion.

As far as justification after the fact, I agree with that somewhat, in a way. I knew from reading the news that there were dozens of reasons that we went to war in Iraq. I knew that the primary reason was to "drain the swamp".

I also know that WMD's was the "one we all cold agree on" according to, IIRC, Wolfowitz. The administration did state all the reasons but put the clear emphasis on WMD's. The Dems took that and justified their votes by restating that there was an "imminent" threat of WMD's. Well now we are back to square one because the admin didn't forcefully justify the war outside of just WMD's. This unwillingness to guide the debate is something that continues to plague the administration (see the MTP interview). Bush's response to not finding WMD's with a shrug is inadequate, IMO.

Yeah, instead of negociating the date he seems to be negociating what he is going to "handover". What kind of power he will handover and to whom is still up in the air.

 

"I won't negotiate with myself. It's that simple."

George W. Bush, to then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, explaining why he would cut taxes regardless of what the reality of the current economic revealed.

If anyone thinks that George W. Bush will change his mind about anything once he's made a decision to do it, they don't understand the way the guy's mind works. Turning over power to the Iraqis on June 30th is a bad idea, but since Bush already said that's the date, I have no doubt that that is the date that the adminstration washes its hands of the situation.

 

Thanks for the response.
I, likewise, was not looking to mix it up with you on this or any issue. I just wanted to show some justfication for my simplification.

This is such a complicated issue, there is no need to make it more complicated. Basicly, until we see what Bush/Bremer do in Iraq in these few months, I just wanted to see any and all points where the US could say "mission accomplished" and getting rid of Saddam has been done.

Taking the current snapshot, this is about all we have to hang our hat on to date. Again, oversimplification.

The nation's infrastructure has been being rebuilt even before "major military action" was finished. Roads were the first to be rebuilt. Sure, this has helped the oil get in and out of Iraq, but this also has probably helped in humanitarian aids, as well. As we say the other day, schools are being rebuilt and so forth.

One question for chocolate or anyone who cares to address it.

Is al quaeda or any outside influence justified simply because the US has troops in Iraq?

Maybe Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, some international Arab joint force would be good to help control and rebuild Iraq. Not knowing all the historical dealings between these Arab nations, would this type if influence be some help? Would Iraqis see a brother there to help or a sellout/puppet for the USA?

 

Let's be fair.
If Bush was flexible with this date, you'd be the first to say that he was moving the goalposts.

 

Actually, no, I would not. It's a pipe dream to think that we can safely turn the country over to the Iraqis without it turning into a total state of anarchy.

I'd rather have us stay there as an occupying force until the country is stable. Period.

Bush is so single-minded once he makes a decision that he is actually simple-minded.

Read the Suskind book for some good insights into what the guy is like. I think you'll be shocked.

 

Kofi must have hit that pipe, too.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said direct elections for a transitional legislature in Iraq cannot be held by the June 30 transfer of power, but that date for a return to sovereignty must still be "respected."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/19/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

To be fair, you nor I are close enough to the situation, the players, or Iraq itself to make a go/no-go call on some deadline.

I just ask, is the UN so single-minded or being bullied by Bush?

 

you are a cynical dope. iraq has no history of a legal system based on the sharia. and the sharia is reactionary garbage in any case.

 

Hey!! I read ur replys on Friday but I didn’t answer u know cause u got me pissed nicephoras !! And I didn’t want to loose my temper online cause it aint worth it!! No one talks about al sabah family like this no one!! I live for them and im ready to die for them!! I know u didn’t mean it and u was just answering me back!! Yes al sabah family did pay for Iraq in the 80’s and that was wrong and I personally am against that!!
Don’t tell me “If we really only cared about ourselves, we'd have been out of Iraq months ago. So stuff it. “cause u cant leave iraq without the money!! U didn’t free the iraq’s just cause ur their best friends r something and u weren’t doing them a favor!! Either the main reason America attacked saddam is because of weapons of mass destruction as u say!! And u were scared that u would get another sept 11 attack!! And scared that u will loose Americans that’s why!! Now u have killed more iraq’s than all the Americans that would of died from those weapon if they were to be used!! Reason 2 money, not the “poor iraq’s” so don’t tell me u care about them cause u don’t!!
U ask me were was I when the Americans freed us in 91!! I was celebrating and I was thanking the American soldiers who were in kuwait at that time, although I wasyoung and until this day I appreciate what u guys have done a lot!! That’s why I have a merican flags on top of my house ready for my celebration on the 25th and 26 th of feb (liberation and national day)!! But thatd doesn’t mean u go around saying u saved my ass!! Cayse u didn’t save at as a favour u save it on an agreement for all the millions we gave u and all the billions u steal from us in a nice way) as well as the oil.
If u notice nicephoras I didn’t say that I accepted u American soldiers to leave fast!! I said the ARABS. Since when was Kuwait part of the arab world!! Kuwait isn’t since the time ur troops have been on my land!! Hardly any countries call us arabs and I’ve seen it with my own eyes countries like (Palestine, libya, Syria and jordon) burning your flags along side ours!! So we aint arabs!! We go by the name of the ARAB JEWS and the shrimps (which I don’t get it yet)
Have a nice day nicephoras!! Enjoy ur time!!

 

Ur knoweledge is the garbage here!! After all ur the one that saked me “if the ol wells are still burning for the gulf war II?” funniest thing I ever heard on this site!!
I have another point which I think was a great move from America!! Basically the Americans have launched this channel in the arab world instead of the old Iraqi channel!! Its called “al-hura” which means “to be free”!! its in Arabic and I have only watched half an hour of it but I watched was great!! They had arabs from different countries talking about the importance of education in the arab world!! they also had freedom to discuss what they wanted even if it was about the USA. They had this great advert, which shows u an arab child trying to cross the desert! It goes “ I dream, I want, I try, I feel, I have”. I will be watching more of it today! That was very clever of the usa and it will help the arab world a lot!

 

the koran and its arcane legal system was nothing more than a basic code of conduct for semi-civilized people living on the arabian peninsula 1400 years ago. it has little if any relevance to the 21st century.