Old Devil Bush Was Right? Hardly....

bountyh

Moderator
Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG


AJAF, Iraq, Feb. 4 - With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.



http://tinyurl.com/3mcy7
 
the us constitution is based on christian law, so what. the first amendment states that the government will not promote any religion. so what if the iraqis want to base their government on Koranic law, as long as other religions are free from persecution. aside from religious values, what other values would you propose the iraqis base their government on?
 
aren't we talking about iraq here? i realize that iran is not a secular government. what i am reading is that they would like to base their new constitution on the koran, just like the us consitution is based on the bible. i don't see a problem with this. if it ends up as an islamic government, where the koran IS the constitution, than that would be a problem, for non-muslims that is.
 
Iran is a Shiite majority country that has 'democratically' elected leadership, just like the new Iraq.

I don't think it will happen to Iraq in the near future if al Sistani has a reasonable role. Refreshing to see a religious leader pushing the importance of not having a religious based government. When could that happen here?
 
What makes the difference what they base their constitution on? As long as the people are free? Ours is based on the bible, theirs will most likely be based on koran, so what, as long as it is not a primarily religious document, and doesn't persecute other forms of religion.

We fought to free the people and give them a democracy and freedom, not to make them christian, or whatever......
 
No

aren't we talking about iraq here? i realize that iran is not a secular government. what i am reading is that they would like to base their new constitution on the koran, just like the us consitution is based on the bible.
No, actually... our government may be consistent with Christian values but it expressly safeguards the right to worship any and all other religions or none at all.

I have read the text of the new Iraqi government and what they are requiring is that NOTHING in the new constitution or any laws may conflict with Islamic law.

That is a whole different ballgame.... and means they have time warped back 1000 years and their women will all be forced to wear those black body bags again.
 
What makes the difference what they base their constitution on? As long as the people are free?
Their women will be every bit as free as the women were after the Mujahadeen installed an Islamic government in Afghanistan.
 
The Interim Constitution states that "Article 7 (A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period.". During the transitional period while they write the permanent constitution things should stay as they are now. That constitution could put an end to some, most, or all of the rights listed in Chapter Two.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/iz00000_.html
 
Bounty-
The Interim Constitution that you quote was signed just under a year ago. Power was passed to the Iraqis soon after. To date, I've not seen any huge move toward a Fundamentalist State.

Am I to understand that you're quoting words from a year old document as "news"? As support for the "changing winds" in Iraq? Seems to me, our own humble beginnings included a rather popular movement to crown George Washington "King". Clearer heads (including Washington's) prevailed. I've seen nothing that would indicate the Iraqis are any less clear-headed.
Rich
 
you forgot the last part of Article 7 (A):

"This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice."

certain parts of america can be considered a religious fife. ever been to Utah? Amana Colonies in Iowa?

again i will ask, what moral system do you propose the iraqis base their new government on?
 
Well, George W Bush and Comrade brother Tony Blair did say we were going to give the Iraqi people "democracy". If the majority decide they want an Islamic theocracy that means they can simply get it right? I mean they are getting democracy right? ;)

"I hear a lot of talk here about how we are going to impose this leader or that leader. Forget it. From day one we have said the Iraqi people are capable of running their own country. That is what we believe. The position of the United States of America is the Iraqis are plenty capable of running Iraq and that is precisely what is going to happen."
- George W. Bush - Belfast, Northern Ireland, 08/04/03

"And why are they doing it? Because they agree with me about this battle's importance. They know that if we give Iraq democracy, set it on a path to prosperity, leave it in the sole charge and sovereignty of the Iraqi people, its oil its own, its citizens free to worship in the way they wish, Muslim and non-Muslim, that means not just the re-birth of Iraq, it means the death of the poisonous propaganda monster about America these extremists have created in the minds of much of the world. What these fanatics are doing now in Iraq is not irrational. It is an entirely rational strategy."
- Tony Blair, speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet 10/11/2003
 
Wow, I never knew we were going into Iraq to force a secular Constitution/government on them.

Wait, they had a secular governemnt before the United States invaded, and that certainly didn't work out too well.

Methinks, once again, someone has a warped view of what was intended in Iraq.


"means they have time warped back 1000 years and their women will all be forced to wear those black body bags again."

Uhm... Do you know what the Koran says about clothing? It only requests that women AND men dress modestly.

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity; that is purer for them. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to make a display of their beauty except what is apparent, and let them cast a cover over their bosoms.... And turn to Allah (God) altogether, O believers, in order that you might succeed (Koran 24: 30-31)."


How women are treated and repressed in many Muslim nations is NOT mandated in the Koran, either.

I'll also remind you that Turkey is a Muslim nation that bases its laws on the Koran, but governs secularly. Women are quite independent and free in Turkey. IIRC, there's even a Turkish edition of Playboy.
 
Methinks, once again, someone has a warped view of what was intended in Iraq.
Perhaps, but in my defense, the admin has changed the reason(s) so many times that my PDA ran out of memory.

1) They had bios and chems stockpiled.

2) they were supporting terror groups like Al Qaeda

3) They were supplying WMD to said groups.

4)They were building nuclear weapons.

5) Saddam was a murderer.... no shock there, since we hired him just for that reason to pound the Iranians into the sand.


Bottom line: Bush had no "MISSION" in Iraq save the obvious ones: destroy the yahoo that threatened his dad, and secure a spot for US bases in the region... and install a puppet regime which would pump cheap oil.

If my view of what was "intended in Iraq" is "warped", you can hardly blame me: even the Bush admin keeps changing their tune on that subject.

How women are treated and repressed in many Muslim nations is NOT mandated in the Koran, either.
Hmmm... must be one of those "options" that everybody orders, because they are all equipped with it.
 
Bounty-
The Interim Constitution that you quote was signed just under a year ago. Power was passed to the Iraqis soon after. To date, I've not seen any huge move toward a Fundamentalist State.
Rich
Then you missed the election results showing the large lead for the Shiites who are plugged into Iran.

Bounty-

Am I to understand that you're quoting words from a year old document as "news"? As support for the "changing winds" in Iraq? Seems to me, our own humble beginnings included a rather popular movement to crown George Washington "King". Clearer heads (including Washington's) prevailed. I've seen nothing that would indicate the Iraqis are any less clear-headed.
Rich
The election results so far seem to show the "heads" are definitely leaning toward an Islamic theocracy... how repressive? Time will tell.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146401,00.html

Sheeites Hold Lead in Latest Tally of Iraq Vote
Friday, February 04, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A new, partial tally of votes Friday from Iraq's landmark elections showed a Sheeite coalition whose leaders have close ties to Iran rolling up a strong lead over other tickets, including that of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (search).

The United Iraqi Alliance (search), which has the endorsement of Iraq's top Sheeite clerics, won more than two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted so far, the election commission said. Allawi's ticket was running second with more than 579,700 votes.
 
"Perhaps, but in my defense, the admin has changed the reason(s) so many times that my PDA ran out of memory."

Then your memory is as faulty as that of your PDA.

ALL of those reasons for going into Iraq were espoused from the BEGINNING.

It was never a case of as one fell away, another was invented to take the previous reason's place.

And once again, as has been pointed out repeatedly, even those nations that didn't back the war in Iraq (France, Germany, Russia, Canada, among others) felt that Iraq:

1. Had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

2. May have had links to organized terror groups.

3. Had at least a basic nuclear weapons research and development program.

Yet people such as yourself ignore that, or choose to forget it. Is it, perhaps, too inconvenient to remember that? More importantly, if that's what you're counting on for your "defense," it only shows that you've ignored history as a means of fueling your own fury/fantasy.

Before the war in Iraq, even the Canadian government believed that Iraq had WMDs.

From a speech in Parliament, October 1, 2002, Hon. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs (excerpt):

"Let us conclude with one last critical point. Our objective is to rid the Iraqi regime of weapons of mass destruction. There are those who claim that regime change is the only means to this end. If Iraq refuses to cooperate, they may turn out to be right."

Pretty clear statement of what the Minster thought about Iraq possessing WMDs.

Did the governments of all of these other nations also lie to their people?




"Hmmm... must be one of those "options" that everybody orders, because they are all equipped with it."

Everybody?

All?

Hmmmm.... Your selective interpretation of reality to meet your own fantasies is again rearing its ugly head.

In the same message that you pulled that quote from I gave you an example of a Muslim nation that does NOT repress women as do some other middle eastern nations...

Come on, you can do it, you can look back through my message and you can find the name of that nation...

TURKEY!

That's RIGHT!

Here's the name of ANOTHER Muslim nation in which organized repression of women isn't built into society as it is in some Muslim nations.

Indonesia.

I'm sure you've heard of that predominantly (88% +) Muslim nation. After all, it's population, nearly 240 million, makes it not all that much smaller than the United States, and which also makes it the world's most populous Muslim nation.
 
Bounty-
I'm sorry, but your arguments each contain a gap somewhere between the "premise" and "conclusion" phases; in each case you bridge the gap with least-common-denominator conspiracy theory.

Whatever floats your boat. For my own part, I much prefer simple truth and logic.
Rich
 
Bounty-
I'm sorry, but your arguments each contain a gap somewhere between the "premise" and "conclusion" phases; in each case you bridge the gap with least-common-denominator conspiracy theory.

Whatever floats your boat. For my own part, I much prefer simple truth and logic.
Rich
I doubt my "arguments" are as absurd as your response.... since I simply posted a fact, that the current election results show a large edge to Shiite candidates who are linked to Iran.

FYI, that's not an argument... it is just a news story.

And if you "prefer truth".... how can you believe anything the Bush admin says? Your "logic" (and common sense) should show you thay have been wrong on nearly everything so far with respect to Iraq.
 
I doubt my "arguments" are as absurd as your response.... since I simply posted a fact, that the current election results show a large edge to Shiite candidates who are linked to Iran.
I just love it when a plan comes together. :D

OK, track me now....in support of my claim that you jump from premise to conclusion only based upon predilection for conspiracy theory, I offer the following:

Premise:
the admin has changed the reason(s) so many times that my PDA ran out of memory.

1) They had bios and chems stockpiled.
2) they were supporting terror groups like Al Qaeda
3) They were supplying WMD to said groups.
4)They were building nuclear weapons.
5) Saddam was a murderer.... no shock there, since we hired him just for that reason to pound the Iranians into the sand.

Conclusion:
Bottom line: Bush had no "MISSION" in Iraq save the obvious ones: destroy the yahoo that threatened his dad, and secure a spot for US bases in the region... and install a puppet regime which would pump cheap oil.

Res Ipsa Loquitur :eek:
Rich
 
Back
Top