Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Iraqi interim constitution or Democracy works

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Freemason, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Iraqi interim constitution or Democracy works

    What's Next on Road to Iraq Self-Rule?
    Mar 1, 2:13 PM (ET)
    By ROBERT H. REID


    Q: Now that Iraq has an interim constitution, what's the next step before the Iraqis assume power?
    A: The Iraqis must decide next how to form a new transitional government to take power from the U.S.-led occupation authority on June 30. The U.S. roadmap accepted by the Iraqi Governing Council on Nov. 15 fell apart after the Shiite clergy objected to plans to select a legislature in regional caucuses rather than national elections. The United Nations agreed with Washington that elections by June 30 were impossible. U.N. help may be required to help the factious Governing Council come up with a new formula for a transitional government to run the country until national elections.

    Commentary:
    Not bad, not bad at all. On their own they have formed a gov't based on checks and balances with a clearly defined goal of forming a permenant represenative republic with a clearly defined transfer of power. And the pessismists said it couldn't be done, they weren't ready for democracy.


    Q. When will those elections be held?
    A. The interim constitution calls for elections for a National Assembly, or parliament, by Jan. 31, 2005. Members of the assembly will then choose a president, two deputy presidents and a prime minister. Once that process is completed, the transitional government will leave office.

    Commentary:
    Jan 31, 2005 is a far more realistic timeframe. For context, it took 7 years to get Japan to this point after WWII. So now where is the whining about how long it's taking?


    Q. Shouldn't the transitional government be enshrined in the interim constitution?
    A. Yes. However, since there are still differences over how to establish that government, Iraqi officials decided to finish the main body of the interim constitution first and spell out the details of the new government in an annex to be completed later.

    Commentary:
    In simple terms, they put the horse before the cart. You can't have a stable gov't without first having a set of rules for it to follow. Now that they have a set of rules, they can work on tweaking them before setting them in stone. Makes perfect sense to me.


    Q. How long will the interim constitution remain in effect?
    A. The interim charter, known officially as the Transitional Administrative Law, is supposed to expire once a permanent constitution has been drafted and approved by the end of 2005. However, Iraqi officials hope many of the principles laid down in the interim constitution, such as the role of Islam, the status of women and a federal system of government, will be carried over in the permanent document.

    Commentary:
    Supposed to, not guaranteed it will. They have given themselves the option of taking more time if necessary. There will be intense international scrutiny to make sure they meet their deadline. So it's likely a moot point.


    Q. Who will draft the permanent constitution?
    A. Under the Nov. 15 transfer plan, voters were to select delegates by March 15, 2005 to draft the permanent constitution, which would be ratified in a national referendum. That plan is now in doubt because of Shiite objections. Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi, said the elected members of the future National Assembly will draft the permanent constitution.

    Commentary:
    I'm curious how they are going to have chekcs-and-balances in place to prevent any one group from holding too much power. This was the concern over the national referendum.


    Q. What will be the American role after Iraqis take power?
    A. Once Iraqis assume sovereignty June 30, the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority will cease operations. An American Embassy, expected to be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, will be reconstituted to help Iraqis continue with reconstruction and with the building of a democratic system.

    Commentary:
    Not seizing the oil. Not imperialism. Not any of the other wild conspiracies. The goal is to make an oasis of democracy in the region. With the larger objective of democracy spreading and the elimination of terrorism.


    Q. Will American troops remain after June 30?
    A. Yes, but their numbers will be pared down from 130,000 to about 110,000. The elected National Assembly will negotiate a new status of forces agreement defining the American security role and the rules under which U.S. and other allied forces operate.

    Commentary:
    Our war on terror isn't over in the middle east. We will have a need for forward-deployed troops for a forseeable 20 more years to come. Having a nation friendly to the US that we can train with will serve several purposes. One to make us more capable and the second to have a strong friend to guard our backs.


    So what does all this mean? We have destroyed an evil madman. We are helping the Iraqi's help themselves by empowering them. And we are showing that democracy can and does work everywhere despite the pessimism and defeatism of the left. It goes to show that Pres. Bush is on the right side of history and will go down as one of the greatest bringers of peace the modern world has ever known. Unfortunately this peace will not become apparent for years to come. Not until terrorism has been defeated and they choose to find a better way.
     
  2. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Let's not pat ourselves on the back just yet hmmmm?
     
  3. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Empowering? Pessimism of the left? Bush on the right side of history?

    I can't comment, Smeg, this is the funniest piece of crap I've ever seen you write. :clap:
     
  4. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Okay so he listens to sean hannity...(cuz that right side of history thing is clearly stolen from his show). Yeah Hannity says some strange things sometimes...but I'm with Freemason (Smeg? his name changed? I've been gone a while) The US (Bush) did the right thing by going into Iraq, and i think we, and the Iraqis will reap the benefits of a saddam-less Iraq for years to come. Yes we believed there was WMD's but that was not the only reason for going there....Saving Iraq was good for National Security, National Interest, it was a great step towards freedom abroad(which again makes us safer) and it was not about oil at all. Oh yeah, there's also that humanitarian thing...

    If i recall it was the French and the Russians that were buying oil illegally. The US has not "stolen" any oil at all. In fact we've invested a lot of money into getting Iraq able to produce their own oil. if we and other countrieswere to buy that oil--legally now, then it would really be enriching the Iraqis.

    Finally, the war only cost 2 or 3% of the national budget, if you want to whine about the cost of the war, there are lots of other things we should be whining about first. We could start with social security. Man i'd love to make *% more and then maybe 16% more (since my employer has to match it). Then i could invest all that money in something I want to instead of the government hanging on to it for 50+ years, then giving me some paltry sum when i am old. I can plan my own retirement thank you.
     
  5. Technetium

    Technetium IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Yeah, they talked about it on NPR. One of the current members of the Iraqi council said very similar things about Bush, i.e. that he believes Bush will be known for years to come as a great liberator. (so much for NPR being the archetypical liberally-biased media)

    It sounds like good news to me. I hope it works out.
     
  6. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's still pretty damn early to say it's worked quite yet.
     
  7. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That hasn't stopped more than a few people from saying it won't.
     
  8. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    They're just as wrong. I'm expecting it to collapse, too, but I'm not saying that it will for sure. It's too early to start patting one's self on the back or kicking one's self in the ***.
     
  9. DurfBarian

    DurfBarian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,706
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Cool . . . you be sure to let us know the instant we find a country like that. :teeth:

    Here's hoping they remember to put things like "women can vote and drive cars" on the law books.
     
  10. Plum

    Plum IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62
    To be honest, the development appears to have more potential than I had expected. I offer much credit to Sistani, and many of the Shiites that followed him, since he placed a massive check on the US and coalition plan, and managed to bring the UN back into the process. I certainly hadn't expected his intervention, but it seems to be turning out for the better. I'm not sure if it will work in the end though, as it's far too early to tell.
     
  11. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is this Smeg you are talking about? Smeg is an obscene insult :innocent:

    I'm not suprised you didn't comment on it. You've lately only been insulting without any substance. I used to expect better of you.
     
  12. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165

    And I of you. I don't feel most of your posts are worth a serious response anymore. You've said it all before and you've been refuted more often than not. I've got better ways to slack off at work. But thanks for caring.
     
  13. dantose

    dantose IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
  14. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
  15. dantose

    dantose IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    and US had people lining up around the block? and wouldn't that support us being over there anyway? to keep them from going the way of france?
     
  16. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Oh, so we did it well, everyone should do it well? Nevermind we were a relatively new country (or colony, depending on how you look at it) Also nevermind that we were basically running things from the get go anyways.


    Where did I say otherwise? :scratch: All I said was look how old France is(was), look how old we are(were). It's somewhat hard, in my opinion, for a nation to look around and say "hmmmm........... democracy"
     
  17. Technetium

    Technetium IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Every time a thread like this comes up, it always seems like some of the liberal side (not all) are more concerned with Bush being wrong at any cost, even if it means chaos in Iraq. I get the distinct impression that there is a desire to see any progress towards democracy in Iraq fail if only because it would mean Bush failed. I'm no fan of Bush, but I want to see success in the establishment of a new democracy there. That's what would be best for the people living there, and that's much more important than proving Bush wrong.
     
  18. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for seeing through the partisanship on both sides and seeing this for what it really is - history in the making.

    I'm glad it was on Pres. Bush's watch. But had it happened on Pres. Clinton's watch it'd be no different. We suceeded. The terrorists just haven't figured that out yet.
     
  19. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it happened on Slick Willie's watch, the libs would have made him out to be a hero.

    *waves stars and stripes*
     
  20. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could handle that. Especially with all the hay that could be made of their previous anti-war and anti-military stances. It'd be loads of fun.

    Wait a minute, isn't that happening right now? Yeah it is, Senator John 'effin Kerry! :lol:
     

Share This Page