posted on March 8, 2004 02:10:05 PM new
Yeah it is a real good begining-- for a disaster. The majority Shiites are not happy with it, and I beleive they signed it just to get the US out of the country in June. The Shiites make up 60% of the population of Iraq ( mostly in the South) and right next door is the Shiite nation of Iran. Southern Iraq will be a Shiite despot regime just like Iran probably this time next, the North will become a Kurdish state at war with Turkey, and it will be open season on the Sunni's in the middle.
And just what do you think Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will do about this new government in Iraq ? Women in government ?? In SA they aren't even allowed to drive. Both Kuwait and SA dissolved their "parliments". Unless we are willing to keep troops there permanently and take the casualties, civil war will come to Iraq.
One thing will help though and that is to topple the Iranian religious dictators. It looks like we may be "making" the case right now over nuclear weapons in Iran.
Iraq Council Signs Constitution; Top Cleric Unhappy
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Governing Council signed an interim constitution Monday after weeks of wrangling in a key step for the June 30 launch of a sovereign Iraqi government, but Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric sharply criticized the document.
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who wields immense influence over the country's 60 percent Shi'ite majority, said in a statement Monday the interim charter would make it harder for Iraq to agree on a permanent constitution, a foundation for democracy.
Sistani's objections to the document forced the signing of the constitution to be abandoned at the last minute Friday when five Shi'ite council members backed out of the ceremony. After talks at the weekend with Sistani and other clerics in the holy city of Najaf they went ahead with the signing Monday.
The Shi'ite politicians said Sistani gave them the go-ahead to sign despite his objections because he did not want to seem to be blocking progress. But the cleric's misgivings will make it harder for Iraq's occupiers to win backing for their plans.
Blasts rang out across Baghdad just before the signing, as a crowd of children dressed in Iraqi national costumes sang traditional songs to assembled dignitaries at the ceremony.
Police said guerrillas fired mortars at a police station, wounding three civilians and two policemen. Security forces had been on high alert for attacks aimed at disrupting the signing.
PAINFUL BIRTH
Adnan Pachachi, a senior member of the Governing Council, said at Monday's ceremony that the event was "a great and historic day for Iraq." Iraq's U.S. governor, Paul Bremer, also hailed the agreement and noted the difficulties it had faced.
"We are witnessing the birth of democracy and birth is painful, as we've learned over the last few evenings," he told the council. "Not everyone got everything they wanted in this law -- that's the way of democracy."
Secretary of State Colin Powell hailed the agreement.
"Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty and what the new Iraq will look like," he said. "Read what it says and you will see the vision the Iraqi people have for themselves. And let there be no doubt... that it is a bright future."
The signing ceremony had been delayed twice -- first by bomb attacks on Shi'ites that killed at least 181 people last Tuesday, and then by Sistani's intervention Friday.
Sistani, a 73-year-old Iranian-born religious scholar, has increasingly exerted his influence on politics in recent months to ensure Shi'ite aspirations are heard. Earlier this year the U.S.-led authority accelerated the timetable for elections after Sistani demanded polls as soon as possible.
SHI'ITES AT ODDS WITH KURDS
Governing Council members said Sistani's main objection to the interim charter was a clause that could allow minority Kurds to veto a permanent constitution due to be drawn up next year if it does not enshrine their demands for autonomy.
Sistani also says an unelected body should not be allowed to pass legislation. Under the U.S. plan, an unelected Iraqi government will take over sovereignty on June 30. An assembly will be elected by end-January next year and full democratic elections will be held by the end of 2005.
"This (law) places obstacles to arriving at a permanent constitution for the country that preserves its unity and the rights of its people, in all their ethnicities and sects," said the statement issued by Sistani's office in Najaf.
"Any law prepared for the transitional period will not have legitimacy until it is approved by the elected national assembly."
Shi'ites in the Governing Council said they hoped a permanent constitution would undo some of the concessions they had made in order to get the interim document agreed.
"We will do our best to change the situation," said Hamid al-Bayati, a senior official of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a top Shi'ite party.
"We are committed to what we signed but if we have the chance to alter it in the future, we will do our best."
That could put Shi'ites at odds with the Kurds, who say they will never agree to give up their autonomy in three northern provinces they wrested from Saddam Hussein's rule in 1991.
Several contentious issues had threatened the passage of the interim constitution. Shi'ites had wanted Islam to be recognized as the main source of legislation; instead, it was recognized as one source, and as the official religion of Iraq.
The Kurds wanted and got recognition of the governments they established in the northern zone since 1991, but not the clear assurances they had sought that their militias would be the only military force there, rather than the central government's army.
The agreed document embraced a federal state, as the Kurds had demanded, and also sets a target that one quarter of the Iraqi assembly due to be elected next year should be women.
It's crazy to believe that Bushco is building the biggest U.S. embassy in the world in Baghdad - because we are going to hand over sovereignty.
I doubt that the Iraqis will want their country controlled by U.S. corporations, along with the U.S. military forces and the biggest U.S. embassy in the world to accommodate 3,000 people in the middle of Baghdad.
The ink was barely dry on this "constitution" before it was called illegitimate by the Iraqi people.
posted on March 8, 2004 02:30:51 PM newIraqi women juggle freedom, 'moral duty'
Iraqi women are diverse -- from traditional women like Hassan to educated matrons in elegant designer scarves who drive the streets of Baghdad in BMW sedans to brash young women who go to jobs translating for the U.S. military in heavy makeup and tight jeans.
" From the start of the occupation, rape, abduction, "honour" killings and domestic violence have became daily occurrences. The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (Owfi) has informally surveyed Baghdad, and now knows of 400 women who were raped in the city between April and August last year. A lack of security and proper policing have led to chaos and to growing rates of crime against women. Women can no longer go out alone to work, or attend schools or universities. An armed male relative has to guard a woman if she wants to leave the house. Girls and women have become a cheap commodity to be traded in post-Saddam Iraq. Owfi knows of cases where virgin girls have been sold to neighbouring countries for $200, and non-virgins for $100. "
posted on March 8, 2004 03:02:37 PM new
The longer we stay in Iraq, the less legitimate our occupation is.
I would almost vote for Bush to see what he will do when Iraq is declared an Islamic Republic run by Mullahs shouting death to America !!
They already have recognized Islam is the interim document, and the majority Shiites have stated that when the real constitution is drawn up, Islam will be the only basis for the government.
Bush had his head up his a$$ when he planned this Iraq "project".
Of all the countries in the Persian Gulf that pose a threat, it turns out that Iraq was the least dangerous- and it was the only secular country to boot !!!
Despite their reservations, top Shi'ite clerics see the importance of the new charter for the 'greater good' of Iraq, officials say
NAJAF (Iraq) - Iraq's interim Constitution will be signed today without changes to the text and despite the reservations of the country's foremost Shi'ite cleric.
'We will sign the interim Constitution on Monday as it stands,' Mr Mohammed Hussein Bahr Al-Uloum, the son and chief adviser to Mr Mohammed Bahr Al-Uloum, the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, said yesterday.
Top Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani had been told that 'our interest is in signing the Constitution', he added.
'We don't want the rest of the council to fear that the Shi'ites want to demolish the whole process. We don't want them to fear that the Shi'ites are trying to control things.'
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 8, 2004 03:21 PM ]
posted on March 8, 2004 04:38:56 PM new
They should have dragged Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani out in the street and put a bullet in the back of his head and pissed on the corpse and the next cleric would think twice about what he ordered his 'followers' to do.
It's the same old thing like Vietnam.
They can't stay home and mind their own business - but when they go off and play with these rough folks they won't act with the crude force needed to actually win. They are to prissy polite for this game.
The rest of the world doesn't fight like it's a made for TV movie.
posted on March 8, 2004 04:57:17 PM newDespite their reservations, top Shi'ite clerics see the importance of the new charter for the 'greater good' of Iraq, officials say
WHICH EQUALS === SIGN THE INTERIM DOCUMENT AND GET THE US ARMY OUT OF HERE.
The Shiite majority will take over Iraq with the help of Iran, as well as covert money and radicals from Kuwait and SA.
posted on March 8, 2004 05:03:58 PM new
From the London Financial Times
Iraq's Governing Council signs constitution
By James Drummond in Baghdad and James Harding in Washington
Published: March 7 2004 12:04 | Last Updated: March 8 2004 19:51
Iraq's most influential Shia cleric on Monday undermined the legitimacy of Iraq's temporary constitution, just hours after it had been signed by members of the US-appointed interim Governing Council.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose insistence on early elections forced the US to revise its plans to return Iraq to self-rule, said in an opinion on his website that the document was "an obstacle" to a future constitution.
The unexpected ruling by the Ayatollah - whose word carries the weight of law for many of Iraq's majority Shia population - is a substantial setback for the US and the 25 members of the Governing Council.
The interim constitution had been celebrated as a sign that Iraq's three main constituencies could establish a common governing framework in spite of the tensions between Kurds, Sunni and Shia muslims. It was also heralded as a triumph for Paul Bremer, the top US administrator in Iraq, and the Coalition Provisional Authority. Shia members of the interim Governing Council had earlier signed the temporary administrative law, as it is known, unaltered after apparently receiving the green light from Mr Sistani at the weekend.
Mr Sistani has consistently said substantive decisions about Iraq's future should be left to an assembly that is democratically elected. The interim council which signed Monday's temporary constitution is entirely appointed by the US.
"This law places obstacles in the way of reaching a permanent constitution for the country which would preserve its unity and the rights of its people of all ethnicities and sects," the religious ruling said. "Any law agreed in the interim period does not have the legal weight until it is approved by an elected national assembly."
The administrative law signed on Monday leaves any permanent constitution to be decided by an elected body. But it is a detailed document, which its drafters, headed by Adnan Pachachi, a secular politician, clearly intend to set standards for any future permanent constitution.
It also provides guarantees to Iraq's Kurdish minority, which is effectively given a veto over any permanent constitution. That provision is one of those to which Mr Sistani is thought to have objected last Friday. Shia members of the Governing Council on Monday stressed that despite his position, the temporary constitution would not be redrafted. "It's done but it doesn't stop him [Sistani] from having reservations," said Adnan al-Assadi, an aide to Shia council member Ibrahim al-Jaffari.
Muaffak al-Rubbaie, a Shia council member close to Mr Sistani, said Mr Sistani was "giving his opinion for the record" but that the agreement on the interim constitution would stand.
Mr Bremer said after the signing ceremony - but before Ayatollah Sistani issued his ruling - that Monday was "a wonderful day for all Iraqis". The US needs to underline its commitment to the future of Iraq by making a multi-billion dollar pledge to the country for several years, according to a task force of US military and diplomatic experts.
In findings, to be published on Tuesday, the Council on Foreign Relations, the influential foreign policy think-tank, will recommend that Washington reviews plans to reduce US troop numbers and demonstrates that the US will not abandon the country during a time of difficult transition and in the run up to the US presidential election.
posted on March 8, 2004 07:32:14 PM new
Will there be a real civil war for the country or will they just carve it up into three sections like it should be already?
posted on March 8, 2004 08:38:18 PM new
I'm quite certain that in June, the Iraqis will realize that democracy is the only way to go, and that the US has been right all along. They'll see the futility of a prolonged civil war after we leave. They'll abandon their long held beliefs in Islamic theocracy, and all buckle down to work together for their commom good. All thanks to our great President.
___________________________________
posted on March 8, 2004 09:18:05 PM new
Iraq may break in two, not likely three. The Sunnis probably don't have the support or numbers to break away.
BUT- Turkey will not stand idly by while a Kurdish state comes into being.
Iran will do everything possible to support the Shiite majority in Iraq towards an Islamic Republic. That is if we don't use Iran's nuclear meanderings as a pretext to knock out the ruling Mullahs in Iran first.
Suadi and Kuwait will not stand idly by while a democracy comes into being either. It presents a direct threat to the ruling clans in both countries.
There will be a civil war if we try to stop the country from breaking up and we'll be right in the middle of it.
But in any event, there will be violence. At the least Turkey will try to intervene in the Kurdish region. Turkey has a Kurdish minority problem within its borders and has already stated it will not agree to any sort of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq out of fear it will support a secession and revolt of its Kurds.
3 Killed, 20 wounded as Tens of Thousands of Kurds March in Joy in Kirkuk
The Guardian reports that tens of thousands of Kurds marched in Kirkuk to celebrate the signing of the interim constitution. They incorrectly believed that it accepted a consolidated Kurdistan and gave Kirkuk to the Kurds. Oil-rich Kirkuk, with a population of about 800,000, is divided a third each between Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds. Rioting broke out last December between the ethnic factions at the very suggestion that it be joined to Kurdistan.
al-Hayat says that three Iraqis (including a woman) were killed, and 20 were ounded in clashes that ranged Kurds against Arabs and Turkmen. The clashes followed the Kurdish demonstrations of joy. Police Chief Turhan Yusuf explained that after tens of thousands of Kurds came out into the streets, "Some of them began firing into the air, and the demonstration evolved" into clashes." About 12 of the 20 wounded were seriously hurt and were taken to hospital. He added that the city had been put under night curfew.
Newsday explains that ethnic tensions were anyway running high in the city lately.
posted on March 9, 2004 08:49:44 AM new
Was it 'smooth sailing' when the U.S. was breaking away from England?
No one said this was going to go smoothly, but imo it's a good beginning. Letting the Iraqi's have the say in how they want their country to be for futher generations. Choice and working out differences is what's made our country what it is today.
Even after 227 years we're still arguing about what direction we want to see our country take. This is their beginning....give them a chance.
posted on March 9, 2004 09:06:20 AM new
You are missing the point, linda. The people of Iraq are not getting "their say".
Americans chose the current governing counsel and many Iraqis see it as illegitimate.
posted on March 9, 2004 09:34:45 AM new
reamond - And our civil war was somehow different than what's beginning to happen in Iraq right now? To me it's not. It's definitely different....but still the same disagreement, none-the-less [which road do we wish to take]
No one was forcing a new type of government on America, it was a unified effort by all involved without interlopers. And I see this differently. I do see England was trying to impose it's 'will' on our nation. And I don't see we're 'forcing' but rather 'encouraging' a way that we believe will work be fair to most. But in the end, it will be their choice, as it should be.
Agreed they are struggling to come to a compromise but that's why they agreed to this *interim* constitution, so they CAN make the final version the way they want, without our input.
Iraq is changing from a secular dictatorship to an Islamic dictatorship. That's still being decided I believe.
The US is attempting to force a western style democracy on Iraq and it simply won't work. I'm saying give them a chance to make it work. They need time. Too much change being pushed through to quickly, imo, mostly because of our own country's disagreement on how long we should remain there. But I'm sure most agree that they'd be hoping for something along the lines of a democracy.
In the end, it will be their decision if they want a democracy or to be like Iran.
posted on March 9, 2004 12:06:13 PM newreamond - And our civil war was somehow different than what's beginning to happen in Iraq right now? To me it's not. It's definitely different....but still the same disagreement, none-the-less [which road do we wish to take]
It is hugely different than our civil war. The issues and history and context are not even comparable. To my knowledge there was no foreign country that came into the United States and eliminated the whole government, and then dictated who would represent the people's interests in the pro forma government. We are attempting to colonize Iraq, not liberate Iraq. The main difference is letting the people of Iraq decide their own fate and not having it forced upon them by foreigners.
And I see this differently. I do see England was trying to impose it's 'will' on our nation. And I don't see we're 'forcing' but rather 'encouraging' a way that we believe will work be fair to most. But in the end, it will be their choice, as it should be.
By your analogy, we could only be England to Iraq being a colony like colonial America. We forced the Iraqis to accept the constitutional delegates we chose at the barrel of a tank.
Agreed they are struggling to come to a compromise but that's why they agreed to this *interim* constitution, so they CAN make the final version the way they want, without our input.
The only thing they are struggling with is the United Sates forcing them to accept a pro forma government that the majority doesn't want. The have "accepted with reservations" this pro forma situation to get the United sates out of their country by June.
I'm saying give them a chance to make it work. They need time. Too much change being pushed through to quickly, imo, mostly because of our own country's disagreement on how long we should remain there. But I'm sure most agree that they'd be hoping for something along the lines of a democracy.
They aren't even close to accepting democracy. They want Islamic despotism just as many christians in the US want a religious despotism, including Bush and Ashcroft. If you ask a Shiite what form of government he wants, he will answer without hesitation- Islamic, which is a government diametrically opposed to democracy, just as modern fundementalist chriatianity is diametrically oppsed to democracy.
In the end, it will be their decision if they want a democracy or to be like Iran.
We'll never know that as long as we our armed forces there forcing them to unwillingly accept our ideas of what they need and want.
posted on March 9, 2004 12:13:57 PM newWe'll never know that as long as we our armed forces there forcing them to unwillingly accept our ideas of what they need and want.
posted on March 9, 2004 12:23:15 PM new
The only BS is we pretending that Iraqis are choosing who represents them in making their constitution. We chose their representatives. And these same people will have a jump on everyone else in the coming power struggle.
I saw one of these American imposed power brokers on TV the other night. He is a millionaire refugee from Iraq. He is the one that gave the US all the bogus intellegence about WOMD.
Now he struts around Iraq with his own private army sucking up all the economic and political power he can manage-- all with the impramatur of the US occupying forces.
posted on March 9, 2004 01:04:12 PM new
reamond - What I'm saying is we/the Iraqi people have to start somewhere. We could not overthrow Saddam and just walk out, that would be total chaos. Even most dems agree on that.
The start is the interim government. Someone has to set up a means by which the Iraqi people can vote individually. SOME sort of political process has to be established so all the people of Iraq can 'vote' their wishes.
This is just a beginning and it's going to be a long time before much 'order' is brought to this process.
What would you suggest we do?
What have you seen presented as a way Kerry, if elected, would handle this differently?
posted on March 9, 2004 01:54:11 PM newreamond - What I'm saying is we/the Iraqi people have to start somewhere. We could not overthrow Saddam and just walk out, that would be total chaos. Even most dems agree on that.
No one said just walk out, but rather butt out politically. Let Iraq set up its own government. What we are attempting to do is set up a government that WE want. No different than what we did in South Vietnam.
The start is the interim government. Someone has to set up a means by which the Iraqi people can vote individually. SOME sort of political process has to be established so all the people of Iraq can 'vote' their wishes.
That is what the detractors wanted- direct election of the constitutional representatives, but the US said no. We hand picked the representatives, and gave them a head start to fill the power vaccum.
This is just a beginning and it's going to be a long time before much 'order' is brought to this process.
It will happen immediately if we let the Iraqis do it themselves.
What would you suggest we do?
Well this goes to our objective in the first place. That was to de-fang a possible threat of WOMDs. That objective is accomplished. So why are we using the US military to set up a government ?
What have you seen presented as a way Kerry, if elected, would handle this differently?
Kerry, if elected, can only "handle" a clean up operation of Bush's mess. That will ultimately be a US military pull back, with an international civilian contingent to support Iraq in its people's self determination.
The real question is how many US soldiers will die before Iraq becomes something we didn't want it to be, such as divided with a southern Islamic Republic, and a northern Kurdish nation at odds with Turkey.
We didnt' need an international coalition or the UN to de-fang Iraq or any other threat. However, we did/do need a large international concensus which probably includes the UN to do what we are presently trying to do.
The Mullahs in effect run these Islamic countries, directly or indirectly.
If we're not careful, our American Mullahs, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al, will rob us of our freedoms too.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 9, 2004 02:14 PM ]
posted on March 9, 2004 02:23:46 PM newThat is what the detractors wanted- direct election of the constitutional representatives, but the US said no.
Yes I understand that. But I believe we said no for good reason. They have nothing...no voting registration...proof of identy, etc. How in the world could a legitimate election take place before there's some form of government/voting rules? And before there are voting laws, one has to have [again] some sort of government. One where we could verify everybody was only voting once. One where certain areas wouldn't be making their local voting places fraudlent? Otherwise we still would have had to have made the decisions on just how a fair voting process was going to occur.
We hand picked the representatives, and gave them a head start to fill the power vaccum. I understand that also. This whole process had t start somewhere. But I hold the position that we did so BECAUSE of the Shite's having a majority and the fact we pretty much knew where that would lead and were working to make the playing field more equal.
I have read the Bush administration has said that after this governing body is handed control of their own country, at that time the decision will be made, by the Iraqi government, as to whether the soldiers stay or go. But, again, from what I've read, they don't want us to go one; because they want our protection so the opposition doesn't kill them and two; because they recognize that even if the UN steps in to help the UN won't be the one's defending their lives with soldiers....military enforcement.
posted on March 9, 2004 02:37:41 PM newYes I understand that. But I believe we said no for good reason. They have nothing...no voting registration...proof of identy, etc. How in the world could a legitimate election take place before there's some form of government/voting rules?
We had no right to say no. That's for the Iraqis to do not us. I hope you're not implying that our elections operate perfectly, I mean look at what happened at the last presidential election.
And before there are voting laws, one has to have [again] some sort of government. One where we could verify everybody was only voting once. One where certain areas wouldn't be making their local voting places fraudlent? Otherwise we still would have had to have made the decisions on just how a fair voting process was going to occur.
Again, that's all for the Iraqis to do not us. Let's face it, we don't have the right or the recent history to tell others how to run a fair election.
I understand that also. This whole process had t start somewhere. But I hold the position that we did so BECAUSE of the Shite's having a majority and the fact we pretty much knew where that would lead and were working to make the playing field more equal.
So how is it that what we propose is more fair than majority rule ? I am confused. You are promoting a democracy in Iraq ?
I have read the Bush administration has said that after this governing body is handed control of their own country, at that time the decision will be made, by the Iraqi government, as to whether the soldiers stay or go. But, again, from what I've read, they don't want us to go one; because they want our protection so the opposition doesn't kill them and two; because they recognize that even if the UN steps in to help the UN won't be the one's defending their lives with soldiers....military enforcement.
Should we be surprised that the representatives we picked want us to stay ?
The bottom line is that the Iraqis must make their own government and that government in all liklihood will not be what Bush wants. That's why we are trying to control it.
posted on March 9, 2004 04:03:29 PM new
reamond - I appreciate you sharing your take on this issue with me.
I still hold the position that we were offering suggestions not deciding for them. The council members were chosen as they represent the diversity in Iraq.
Today, one of the women on the Iraqi council board said [via an interpreter] that she feels the media only shows all the negatives about what's happening in Iraq and they don't focus on the positives that are occurring. The accomplishments that are being made.
During that same segment, it was said that this interim constitition is based on partly on Egyptian law, Canadian law and progressive rules of law.
I think the US team has done a very commendable job in giving support on the 'how to' of establishing a brand new government, from scratch no less. NOT an easy process.
Wasn't easy when our founders set up our constitution either. I've read that some felt they would NEVER reach agreement on the wording of a lot of it. But it did come about, and I believe the Iraqi people can do the same thing.
posted on March 10, 2004 08:56:05 AM new
Latest out of Bagdad.
"I did not understand the interim constitution. Most people don't. It was America who wrote the constitution. It was America who nominated those to write it." Amir Ali, a university official in Baghdad commenting Tuesday on Iraq's new interim constitution.
We should not be doing this. It is a recipe for failure.
We should not send our military into a country in order to use force to set up a phony government. Not only is it a waste of our soldiers, it will never work.
We would never accept governing doctrines forced upon us by another nation, why do we think others will ?
Look at how the right complains about the UN interloping into America's "business", and now look at what we are attempting in Iraq.
This self righteous Bush doctrine is going to backfire.
