PDA

View Full Version : Our loverly constitution......



paladin
02-12-2008, 10:43 AM
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

Canoez
02-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Ouch.

elf
02-12-2008, 11:06 AM
Jeez. Can't you find a more current joke?

Bob Cleek
02-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Well, mainly because as a culture the Iraqis are not mature enough to handle democracy. They are essentially a tribal society. As such, they are doomed to incessant intertribal warfare and power struggles. The only thing that can come close to ruling a society like that is a brutal dictatorship. That's all they understand. That's all that works for them. They must go through such a period of dictatorship before they can mature into a "dictatorship of the proletariat." At present, WE are their dictator. When we leave, and we will, another dictator will arise as the strongest warlord of all. Stupid Americans, we keep fighting the last war we won. Europe was democratic when we "liberated" it, so they made an easy post WWII transition in Germany and Italy. In Japan, without any democratic antecedents, we had to install McArthur as the new American emperor during their transition period. To expect the Iraqis to greet us waiving US flags and kissing GI's like they were marching into Paris was pitifully naive.

ishmael
02-12-2008, 12:28 PM
"Europe was democratic when we "liberated" it,"

I like most of what you said, but I'd have to disagree strongly with that. Hitler is an endlessly fascinating creature, but democratic? I think not.

If he'd poured his energy and material into consolidating his hold on Western Europe, maybe made some sort of pax with England's right, which was strong, we'd have a very different world today. The man was clearly a bit mad, yet even with his over extension of ego into Russia, the crazy booger almost pulled it off. Not content with Poland, Austria, France, Belgium et al, he, almost like a boy playing tin soldier, beat a path to Moscow. The German Panzers were in sight of the Kremlin towers when Stalin finally got enough bodies together to pour into a rather exhausted front of the Nazis.

But anyway, I wouldn't call what we helped liberate "democratic."

Bob Adams
02-12-2008, 12:40 PM
Cleek has a good point. The fact is, no matter how sadistic and evil Hussain was, Iraq needs someone like him to rule. Otherwise it's just going to be a big, dysfunctional family, forever fighting amongst themselves.

Paul Pless
02-12-2008, 01:30 PM
"Europe was democratic when we "liberated" it,"

I like most of what you said, but I'd have to disagree strongly with that. Hitler is an endlessly fascinating creature, but democratic? I think not.He said 'Europe', not Germany, was democratic and that was certainly true.

George.
02-12-2008, 01:43 PM
Well, mainly because as a culture the Iraqis are not mature enough to handle democracy.


True, but neither were you when your Constitution was written. That's why it didn't even allow most of you to vote for over 100 years.

John of Phoenix
02-12-2008, 03:03 PM
When we finally declare Peace with Honor II and haul ass, there will be a bloody revolution very similar to Iran's. Maliki will play the role of the exiled Shah and Sistani (or perhaps Sadr) will play the role of Khomeini. The south will ally with Iran, the center with the Saudis, the Kurds will fight for themselves.

I'm thinking three to four years for it all to play out.
You don't even want to think about the cost of oil. (dubya may have been long gone but the cheney touch lives on like a vampire.)

George.
02-12-2008, 03:11 PM
The south will ally with Iran, the center with the Saudis, the Kurds will fight for themselves.


As opposed to what we have now, right? ;)

Kaa
02-12-2008, 03:20 PM
...as a culture the Iraqis are not mature enough to handle democracy. ... The only thing that can come close to ruling a society like that is a brutal dictatorship. That's all they understand.

Interesting. So the Iraqis are not mature enough. Who else is not mature enough? Egyptians, I guess -- they have more or less the same culture. Pretty much all Arabs, it seems, now that you mention it. Only brutal dictators can handle these bloody savages, right?

And who else is also not mature enough for democracy? The whole of Black Africa, evidently? Indonesia, maybe? Sri Lanka? Myanmar? What about the big one, China -- do you think the Chinese are mature enough to handle democracy?

Oh, and by the way, while living under that brutal dictator, how exactly do people "mature" enough for democracy?

Kaa

John of Phoenix
02-12-2008, 03:36 PM
As opposed to what we have now, right? ;)
Damn George, I was going to claim to being a great clairvoyant - charge extravagant fees for seeing into the future, live in on a yacht, dine on oysters and caviar for breakfast. Ah well, back to the salt mines.

ishmael
02-12-2008, 03:45 PM
"He said 'Europe', not Germany, was democratic and that was certainly true."

No, Europe under the Nazi and Fascist heels was not democratic. If you want to talk traditions before '39 and after '45, then I'll agree. People will chime in and say, "Well Hitler was elected!" Sort of. He wasn't elected to what he became.

I thank the gods that man had a big ego and attacked the Bear rather than settling for most of western Europe. If he had pulled in his horns, made an eventual peace with Britain after Churchill got ousted, things would be much different today. Not better.

Hitler, from what I can gather, was a highly intelligent man, but more than a bit strange. A huge bugaboo of his was Communism, which in itself, given the like propensities of the two systems toward brutality and central control, is odd. He was determined to go after Russia, even though western European chieftans better than he had always bogged, miserably, on the Russian steppe, in the Russian winter.

Oh well, it's all over now. We do have our hands full in a not very similar situation spread across the near and far east. One can still hope for good outcomes, but I think Bob is basically correct. Islam is in a stage similar to Christianity before Luther. Trying to put a stop to it top down is like putting a cork in a broken bottle.

bob winter
02-12-2008, 03:47 PM
Maybe they don't need democracy. Likely what they do need is good government. Also, Iraq and Afghanistan were both creations of the British Empire, I think, any maybe they should not exist, period.

PeterSibley
02-12-2008, 03:48 PM
Interesting. So the Iraqis are not mature enough. Who else is not mature enough? Egyptians, I guess -- they have more or less the same culture. Pretty much all Arabs, it seems, now that you mention it. Only brutal dictators can handle these bloody savages, right?

And who else is also not mature enough for democracy? The whole of Black Africa, evidently? Indonesia, maybe? Sri Lanka? Myanmar? What about the big one, China -- do you think the Chinese are mature enough to handle democracy?

Oh, and by the way, while living under that brutal dictator, how exactly do people "mature" enough for democracy?

Kaa
Indonesia is doing quite well ,thank you .Other than that ,well said .

PeterSibley
02-12-2008, 03:54 PM
[quote=Bob Cleek;1762467 In Japan, without any democratic antecedents, we had to install McArthur as the new American emperor during their transition period. [/quote]
I think a little reading will discover that Japan had an operational Parliamentary system ,until the trauma of the Depression derailed it .That period is not pretty and unlike anything Australia or the US experienced .

Kaa
02-12-2008, 04:18 PM
In short, you cannot compare Germany and Japan to Iraq.

Japan usually pops us when someone makes a statement along the lines of "You can never ever impose democracy by force" (was it you, Norman?) No comparison to Iraq is necessary.

Kaa

PeterSibley
02-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Japan usually pops us when someone makes a statement along the lines of "You can never ever impose democracy by force" (was it you, Norman?) No comparison to Iraq is necessary.

Kaa
or applicable.

rotund1
02-12-2008, 04:38 PM
So it looks as though the whole new world order thing is not going to well. Perhaps we should sprinkle the place with holy water, or nuke the place.

paladin
02-12-2008, 04:43 PM
I posed the original statement tongue in cheek. I firmly believe that Saddam was misled into attacking Kuwait because he thought that he had the U.S. blessing.
The U.S. was doing quite a bit of business with Saddam, above and below the table.....and I firmly believe that with the exception of the bloodletting and tribal rivalries, that their form of government is what the whole of the Iraqi people would have preferred over what we are trying to shove down their throats.

rotund1
02-12-2008, 04:52 PM
I posed the original statement tongue in cheek. I firmly believe that Saddam was misled into attacking Kuwait because he thought that he had the U.S. blessing.
The U.S. was doing quite a bit of business with Saddam, above and below the table.....and I firmly believe that with the exception of the bloodletting and tribal rivalries, that their form of government is what the whole of the Iraqi people would have preferred over what we are trying to shove down their throats.
I thought we brought Saddam to power because he kept the place under control.

rotund1
02-12-2008, 04:54 PM
Oh, and remind me why we took him out.

Kaa
02-12-2008, 05:01 PM
I firmly believe that Saddam was misled into attacking Kuwait because he thought that he had the U.S. blessing.

Well, not exactly a blessing. More like he expected the US to express some public indignation, but not actually do anything about the occupation of Kuwait. In other words, the US did not impress on him strongly enough that if he occupies Kuwait, the US will forcibly eject him.

There's also a persuasive school of thought that says Saddam was simply stupid. If, immediately after occupying Kuwait, he were nice to Kuwaitis, given security assurances to Fahd, guaranteed the flow of oil, and agreed to discuss the issue in some pan-Arab conference, it's very likely he could have kept Kuwait and the US wouldn't have intervened.

Kaa

Nanoose
02-12-2008, 07:17 PM
Not sure they'd go for all that stuff about separation of church and state, Chuck... ;)

Lew Barrett
02-12-2008, 09:11 PM
There's also a persuasive school of thought that says Saddam was simply stupid. If, immediately after occupying Kuwait, he were nice to Kuwaitis, given security assurances to Fahd, guaranteed the flow of oil, and agreed to discuss the issue in some pan-Arab conference, it's very likely he could have kept Kuwait and the US wouldn't have intervened.

Kaa

Hard to say. There's lots of oil in Kuwait, and more in the Kingdom, so it was worth a good pissing match for all concerned. It's difficult to imagine that invading Kuwait wouldn't have resulted in a response. The Saudis are next door.

What is clear from his actions is that you don't have to be American to be aggressive, or miscalculate the extent of your power.

carioca1232001
02-12-2008, 09:37 PM
I posed the original statement tongue in cheek. I firmly believe that Saddam was misled into attacking Kuwait because he thought that he had the U.S. blessing.

Some hold exactly this view, while others prop the same up with: The US egged him on, only to take him out, for whatever reason.


....and I firmly believe that with the exception of the bloodletting and tribal rivalries, that their form of government is what the whole of the Iraqi people would have preferred over what we are trying to shove down their throats.

What the US is tryng to shove down the throats of Iraqis is a great deal more than democracy. America is being asked to do a hopeless job, that is, selling herself as a credibile nation.

This last weekend, saw Pakistanīs democratic fire-brand and civil rights champion, Ms. Asma Jehangir, being cornered by Stephen Sackur on BBC Worldīs Hard Talk program.

There was a time when the lady said: Have the EU, have anybody oversee the elections in Pakistan to ensure that they are conducted in a free and fair manner. But not the Americans........ no, no........they have lost all credibility, their mere presence will signal to the people that the whole thing is being rigged !

paladin
02-12-2008, 09:44 PM
For one thing...Saddam wasn't stupid...I will garauntee(sp) that!And he had tons of advisors with PHD's. They escorted me to a nice office at an area BELOW the lake where they had built the building on the lakebed and water was 20-25 feet over the roof..sorta like a dream exhibition room/conference room for high level meetings. And they were giving talks and estimates of the time and material required to accomplish certain tasks to be in place to better protect their assets fron Iranian or kuwaiti incursuins....and the dudes were no slouches... Saddams personal Appetites were not much of a problem.....but the sons were "Gods" and they could do damn well anything that they wanted with no control...and they were a couple of animals.

Some words were said during a meeting, a man rose from his chair, more words came, the first man put his hand on a combat knife as to draw it out, he lifted the knife maybe 1 inch,,,,some men grabbed him, laid his hand out flat on the table and from somewhere they produced a small brush ax, and chopped the guys hand off.....I guess I looked a bit disgusted. He handed the ax toward me, I reached for it, took it, used a napkin to clean the blade, then threw it 25-30 feet across the room at one of the boys portrait.......it stuck solidly and was left there in silence. IT was suggested that I might want to properly apologize the next day and theings would go well.