posted on August 15, 2005 10:32:46 AM new
It's been an interesting morning listening to Fox News. For a year and a half now we have been hearing from all of their talking heads that we are in Iraq to help them to become a democratic nation and to pass their own constitution and all of the warm fuzzy things that are supposed to make us completely forget that the original reasons we wre given were blatant lies.
Now the day has come and the ratification of the constitution is on hold and the prospects of it happening today are getting bleaker and bleaker and talking head after talking head is asking the same question... What options do we have to force them to do this today?
What options do we have to FORCE them to ratify a DEMOCRATIC constitution? None. It took this country a couple years to hammer everything out and ratify our Constitution and we were not comprised of the faction who have hated each other for centuries. It's not exactly unreasonable that it could take more than 6 months for the Iraqis to come to agreement.
Additional note to Fox - Pease stop harping on Deans comment ... it might not have been beautifully phrased but that fact is, it's correct. The last draft we have seen does in fact afford less rights to Iraqi women than they possessed before our invasion.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 10:56:51 AM new
Great post. Especially about "FORCE them to ratify a DEMOCRATIC constitution?"
Yes, isn't this supposed to be a democracy? How can it be with Bush &co. telling them what to do?
Bush even FORBADE them to allow labor unions....that's a democracy?
posted on August 15, 2005 10:57:36 AM new
Imo, those who are having a problem with this need to realize change does not come this quickly. It can't be perfect and fine-tuned like our's has become over 227 years that we've been changing civil rights issues either.
You expect too much fenix, too soon, imo.
Just having their own freedom makes it better for them and women than it was under saddam.
You are choosing to over look the murders, rapes, being put in wood-choppers, having daughters heads cut off and hung on a post outside their family's house....etc....etc....etc..so many things you are not see as extremely positive changes that HAVE taken place since the fall of saddam.
It really saddens me so many expect so much so quickly. We had slaves when ours was formed. Women weren't allowed to vote here either. But we changed that.....many, many years later. Their's can be changed too. Please realize that fact.
bbl
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited AGAIN] - to add:
under saddam.....they all were FORCED to vote for him.
The rape rooms didn't benefit women much either, imo.
posted on August 15, 2005 11:12:42 AM new
Linda I noticed it said it has a life outside of Vendio, but how could it? It never leaves the website! Drunk on its own spittle in every thread as usual: "blah! bleah! blech! blelk!" That is all it ever posts.
posted on August 15, 2005 11:19:09 AM new
That's because she has no original thoughts of her own, dbl. She always takes what others have said...turns them around ...and says them to those who made the statements to begin with [right vs left].
And I thought she worked at an actual job...from her previous posts complaining about being demoted in pay.
But she can't be working if she's here this much.
Or if she is working, she's just stealing paid time from her employer.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 11:25:08 AM new
Well, if it isn't the auctioninterferencetagteam !
You guys are a riot! Can't say anything intelligent...attack like two rabid pit bulls.
Aww, LindaTWELVEK, are you hurt because I made such a big fool of you in the other thread
Dbel, who mentioned auctions? JACK SPRAT could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean and lost her tiny mind.
posted on August 15, 2005 12:39:23 PM new
::You expect too much fenix, too soon, imo.::
Linda - Please go back and reread my post because I think you completely misunderstood it. I was mocking the talking heads at Fox News not agreeing with them.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 12:57:47 PM new
Okay fenix - I went back and read it. It's hard by the way it's presented to tell when what the Fox News guys are saying are what THEY are saying and when you are making your own comments.
I did take the part about it taking more than 6 months, not being unreasonable, as something you were implying THEY said. Not that it was your statement.
But while not listening to Fox today....I have heard people express that same belief....that we're expecting too much to happen too soon. Just look how how it took our own founders to get a Constitution together that they could agree on. And there was much fighting and disagreeing between them too. It's normal.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 01:49:14 PM new
I agree. I think it was unreasonable of them and us to think it was going to happen this fast. I mean, they have not decided yet whether they want Islamic law to be the law of the land or simply to be an influence in setting thelaw of the land. How can you draft a constitution if you have not yet decided what the basis of it will be?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 01:59:44 PM new
What bothers me the most is those who said we should not push our western ways on them, but now it seems they want those ways after all.
posted on August 15, 2005 02:11:36 PM new
Ron - Iraq is the least islamic of all muslim nations. Sadam was nearly anti-religion. The people there had many of what we would consider "western" laws. Women could not vote but they could drive, work, go out with their hair and faces uncovered, alcohol was not forbidden in the country. The laws of the land were more open and allowed for people to decide whether they wanted to abide by the rules of their religion if they wanted. The question now is how much of those freedoms will exist in the new constitution.
It's not a matter of what western influences they are going to be adopting but rather how many they are willing to give up.
People that complained about us not pushing western ways upon Iraq don't seem to have known much about it.
The thing I keep wondering is where is any mention of the Chaldean community in all of these talks.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 15, 2005 02:14:26 PM new
Well...fenix...I told you a long time ago that IF you and I were in charge we could most likely reach better compromises than many of our leaders/talking heads do.
---------
But I also understand why we've been pushing this....the 'timetable'. It's in hope that once this deadline is met then it will be voted on/ratified and then the Iraqi people can vote their wishes in December. I believe the thinking behind this is the sooner they're governing themselves....the more happy the Iraqi population will be and the sooner they'll be more willing to protect and defend themselves...and that would allow us to down size our troops and let them take over....which is what both sides and the Iraqi people want, imo.
[see, I'm STILL a close second for 'queen of run on sentences]
----------------
Ron, I agree. I think it's only the religious clerics and the fanatical muslims who don't want more western ways to start developing in Iraq. They would rather they tell the people what to do or not do. And that keeps their 'importance' where they want it to be....even if it's not in the best interests of the Iraqi's as a whole.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 15, 2005 04:17:28 PM newWe had slaves when ours was formed. Women weren't allowed to vote here either. But we changed that.....many, many years later
Darn those activist judges and liberal congressmen
All our fighting is going to result in the creation of another Islamist state, albeit one with some democratic overtones.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y saliσ trasquilado...
posted on August 15, 2005 06:02:42 PM new
The big difference being, profe, is that our Constitution was amended....not anywhere near the same as activist judges 'making up laws' that don't exist except they think they should so they rule that way....not based on law...on their own person political platform.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
BAGHDAD Iraqi officials facing a midnight deadline and intense pressure from the Bush administration failed Monday to finish writing a new constitution, stumbling on long-standing differences over the division of power and oil money, the role of religion and the status of women.
The National Assembly, summoned for an extraordinary session, voted just half an hour before midnight to extend by a week the Aug. 15 deadline for drafting the constitution. The decision was a setback for the U.S., which fears that falling behind schedule will encourage the deadly insurgency and send a message that Iraq is adrift.
The Iraqi parliament voted to amend the interim constitution to allow the permanent constitution to be presented for a vote on August 22 rather than Aug. 15. That gives negotiators one more week to work out a deal.
The one-week extension is clever, since it avoids the dissolution of parliament and it keeps the pressure on the various parties to agree.
It is not clear, however, what difference a week will make.
I suppose they could serially amend the interim constitution to allow further delays, but at some point this procedure will begin to look silly.
Anyway, one cliff-hanger is over, and now yet another one begins.
