[Article] Blow to US Plans for Iraq Handover as 100-day Countdown Starts

sovtek

Personally i think a democratically elected government should write the constitution anyway, not the hand picked government by an occupying power. Especially when (If I've heard correctly) it gives the occupiers veto power.
Anyway seems Sistani isn't so enamored of it either.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0323-02.htm

Villain

Thats put a spanner in the works, but doubth it will change their thinking.

mr_angry

Depends how highly they value his opinion really. As leader of the Shiites, his voice will carry a lot of weight with the majority of the population. The last thing the US needs at the moment is for the moderate Iraqi population to turn hardline on them. AFAIK, the Sunni Muslims have always been more anti-US than the Shiites. I doubt the US want to see both of the communities allied against them.

sovtek

Originally posted by irish1
Thats put a spanner in the works, but doubth it will change their thinking.

Me either and I suspect no matter how many people die nor however ****ed up Iraq gets that it will change their thinking either.

Armaugh

Originally posted by sovtek
Personally i think a democratically elected government should write the constitution anyway, not the hand picked government by an occupying power.

Not the smartest of posts since elections, offices, the nature of elected offices, qualifications for office and terms of office are set by a Constitution.

One thing for sure, there were more people protesting the war in Dublin last week than protested in Iraq. Iraqis seem to be happy that Saddam's torture chambers, childrens prisons and rape-rooms are gone. You people here seem saddened by that.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Armaugh
Not the smartest of posts since elections, offices, the nature of elected offices, qualifications for office and terms of office are set by a Constitution.

One thing for sure, there were more people protesting the war in Dublin last week than protested in Iraq. Iraqis seem to be happy that Saddam's torture chambers, childrens prisons and rape-rooms are gone. You people here seem saddened by that.

No offence mate, but what are you talking about? When has anyone on this thread suggested that Saddam should be reinstated? Thats right - never! This is a discussion on the Shiite leader criticising PARTS of the constitution that he feels will take control away from the Iraqi people. How did you get from that to "You all love Saddam"?

Please explain to me, because it sounds like bollocks at the moment.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Armaugh
One thing for sure, there were more people protesting the war in Dublin last week than protested in Iraq.

How can you be so sure? Do you think the US would allow the press to see how anti-US the Iraqi people are? It's such basic propaganda that I'm always amazed how people get sucked in by it.

As said above, nothing will change. The US has the guns so they make the rules. It's all very mature stuff.

Nick

sovtek

Originally posted by Armaugh
Iraqis seem to be happy that Saddam's torture chambers, childrens prisons and rape-rooms are gone. You people here seem saddened by that.

Why yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

aidan_walsh

Originally posted by MeatProduct
How can you be so sure? Do you think the US would allow the press to see how anti-US the Iraqi people are? It's such basic propaganda that I'm always amazed how people get sucked in by it.

Given the presses love of Iraqi rooftops (watch any reporter on any channel), how could they miss a couple of dozen\hundred people marching down the street chanting and waving banners?

Couple that with the army telling them "Sorry mate, can't go that way today"...

sovtek

Originally posted by Armaugh
One thing for sure, there were more people protesting the war in Dublin last week than protested in Iraq.

What were 14 British soldiers injured in Basra doing?

mr_angry

They were trying to quell a riot after a demonstration against unemployment in the city.

Armaugh

Originally posted by mr_angry
No offence mate, but what are you talking about?

I see much anti American posting here so hateful that it's clouded any pretense of clear thinking. What's wrong with you people? You may not like the current American president fine, but as I said there are more people protesting the Iraqi thing in Ireland than in Iraq, and last week in London I saw lots of signs calling Americans murderers and Bush and Blair Nazis, but not a peep about what Huissein did to his own people.

I'm not saying you love Saddam. I'm saying that most of you here prefer Saddam's brutal authoritarian dictatorship than the idea of British and American troops liberating Iraq. Call me wrong, but when I see vacuous posts about the Iraqi constitution being a bad thing under the present circumstances, I must cringe. The only explaination is hate for the coalition that liberated Iraq, not for any benevolent feelings toward the Iraqi people.

gandalf

Lear returns

MeatProduct

Utter nonsense, it's clearly Lear.

Nick

Villain

Originally posted by gandalf
Lear returns

Thats says it all:D

Ah come on lear, we all know sadaam was evil, but bush has made a mess of it too, his main reason for going to war was not to liberate the Iraqi people, the reason did he go has not materialised.

Bush cares more about oil than the iraqi people.

sovtek

Originally posted by Armaugh
]I see much anti American posting here so hateful that it's clouded any pretense of clear thinking.

I find deriding someone for a lack of intelligence because of their opinion somewhat hateful, not criticizing the leader of another country especially when it profoundly effects many countries throughout the world.

What's wrong with you people?

Ummm we're are using logic and debating based on that.

Iraqi thing in Ireland than in Iraq, and last week in London I saw lots of signs calling Americans murderers and Bush and Blair Nazis, but not a peep about what Huissein did to his own people.

Not true, there have been many protests by Iraqi's of the occupation numbering in the tens of thousands. Some of which US soldiers killed.

I'm not saying you love Saddam. I'm saying that most of you here prefer Saddam's brutal authoritarian dictatorship than the idea of British and American troops liberating Iraq.

It's either A or B is it? Just to clarify In terms of the average Iraqi being safe and secure, yes Saddam's Iraq was somewhat better. Putting that with America and British support of Saddam for most of his leadership of Iraq. At the same time there shouldn't be American and British troops in Iraq. There were many times in the history of Saddam that he could have been overthrown by his own people, but America and other western countries prefer yours truly.
Also forgetting that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda and Bin Laden's threats against America.

Call me wrong, but when I see vacuous posts

Somewhat over used but..... Pot meet Kettle.

about the Iraqi constitution being a bad thing under the present circumstances, I must cringe.

An Iraqi constitution written by an elected body is a great thing. A constitution written by a US handpicked government isn't.

The only explaination is hate for the coalition that liberated Iraq, not for any benevolent feelings toward the Iraqi people.

Yes I'm only motivated by hate that's why I'm so concerned about their being a truly democratic process in Iraq.
As your argument is a logical fallacy I'll offer another possible motivation. I am aware of the attempts at setting up a puppet government in Iraq by America so I distrust their methods of "democracy" in Iraq.

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
They were trying to quell a riot after a demonstration against unemployment in the city.

And who "unemployed" them.

mr_angry

Originally posted by sovtek
And who "unemployed" them.

Hmmm. Somewhat sketchy - I'd be inclined to check the pre-war unemployment figures for Basra before I commented on that (its a bit late now, but I'll consider doing so in the morning). I'm sure the invasion, the battle for and defense of Basra, and the collapse of the Iraqi milatary are mitigating factors, but I'm not convinced that its entirely the fault of the Allies.

Much as I was against the kind of war that was fought at the time, and some of the motives for doing so, the removal of Saddam as a singular act was a good thing. There is only one group that can put things right now - the Allies. No use in backing out now. Hopefully the Iraqi people will get a fair deal out of the whole thing. With a bit of luck, the particular articles in the constitution will be removed.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I feel compelled to point out that the vast majority of constitutions throughout history were not written by elected authorities.

Decolonized nations, the US constitution, the French constitution, notably the German and Japanese constitutions also. They were almost exclusively written by a vacating authority.

Oh, and Armaugh- I object to the suggestion that support or refusal of the war is a black and white choice between leaving Saddam in place and removing him by force. I was never in favour of leaving him in place, doing so meant crippling sanctions that punished the population.

And of course war meant destabilising the region, making it a haven for jihadis, undermining the fight against terrorism and destroying the semblence of a world order we have left that isn't ruled by Pax Americana. The disadvantages of the war have been well documented here and elsewhere, they can be clearly seen for god's sake. Al-Qaeda wanted a clash of civilisations and we're obliging them.

The intelligent choice would be engagement- look at China, Libya etc- political engagement there has brought liberalisation, rights and reform. China only recently recognized property rights, Libya is returning to the international fold. This has nothing to do with Iraq, but it has everything to do with re-integration and engagement over years. From the Lockerbie bombing concessions to the Hong Kong handover, engagement in both nations has paid rich dividends, and without a drop of blood being spilled.


Lastly, it's absurd to consider Saddam's removal as an event in isolation, just as it would be absurd to consider Saddam's abuse of human rights as events in isolation. You have to take the big picture.

In the latter case, it is unarguable that without the oil trade and billions of dollars of government loans and credit extended to Saddam by the US, UK, Germany and France- that Saddam would not have had the resources to carry out his purges. He was an evil man, but we gave him the tools, and even encouraged him to make war on his neighbors. Create monsters if you wish, but biting the hand you fed when it is politically convenient is not only expeditious, but it is bad policy, period.

In the former case, Saddam's removal has to be seen in the context of a fight against terrorism that depends on a battle for hearts and minds. Has to also be seen in the context of how democracy can be brought about realistically and how it can't. This isn't the lawless climate of the mid 20th century- the very reasons that international institutions were set up for have been spectacularly thwarted. Now it will be excrutiatingly difficult to ask Israel, China, Russia or pretty much any nation to live up to its commitments, when the world's two foremost military powers choose to ignore theirs.

It's probably a good idea to consider that in isolation that the purpose of colonization and the "civilization" of tribes was a good thing. Of course, if you ignore the consequences, a lot of things sound nice in isolation.

sovtek

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Decolonized nations, the US constitution, the French constitution, notably the German and Japanese constitutions also. They were almost exclusively written by a vacating authority.

The US Constitution was written by representatives of a rebelling colony. In Iraq the constitution is being written by the hand picked government of the occupying power. Actually as I understand it the Geneva Convention calls for the occupying power to leave a nation's constitution in place.
There is also the matter of the US dismantling the governments that Iraqi's were already starting to erect in the ensuing chaos created by the evacuation of the former regime.
I'll back up a bit and say that maybe the framers of the Iraqi constitution don't necessarily need to be democratically elected. I definetly don't think the current process is off to a good start. The US is already trying to impose it's own version of elections.

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
In Iraq the constitution is being written by the hand picked government of the occupying power.

In Iraq, the provisional constitution is being written by the hand-picked government of the occupying power.

I would go so far as to point at our own dear nation and the fact that our current constitution was enacted in 1937. We had one before that - we just replaced it. The Iraqi people will be able to do the same in the future should they so wish.

Actually as I understand it the Geneva Convention calls for the occupying power to leave a nation's constitution in place.

Well, the full text of the Geneva Conventions are available online, so if you'd care to point out the bit which says this? Oh - and have you checked that Iraq has a constitution which could be left in place?

There is also the matter of the US dismantling the governments that Iraqi's were already starting to erect in the ensuing chaos created by the evacuation of the former regime.

Yes, they did. You think this is a bad thing? Note - before you answer, consider that you used the plural form of government. Just how many do you think the US should have permitted? How do they decide which to permit and which not to? How, once you allow more than one, do you decide which has jurisdiction and authority?

The US is already trying to impose it's own version of elections.

And the UN has said that they won't work, and has suggested its version of elections instead. Are the UN also wrong? The US, incidentally, has abandoned the caucus idea following the UN findings, so should we conclude from this that the UN is being equally impositional and unfair?

Or is it just that when the US thinks something is a good idea, its automatically wrong, but when the UN thinks something is a good idea, its automatically right? You may like to believe that the UN is more impartial in terms of its decisions etc. but the simple fact is that this is not what you are arguing. You are simply saying that the US is wrong to have imposed somethign...not that its wrong because the something it tries to impose is not a good something in the first place.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
In Iraq, the provisional constitution is being written by the hand-picked government of the occupying power.

The Iraqi people will be able to do the same in the future should they so wish.

Ah but will they...

"The Iraq Governing Council holds on to power. Since the constitution says nothing about how the interim government will actually be selected, the unspoken understanding is that the Governing Council -perhaps enlarged by additional U.S.-selected individuals, perhaps in its current form-will remain the center of Iraqi authority. Many current members of the Council have made clear their desire to hold on to power, knowing that (since most of them spent the last decade or two or three outside of Iraq) they would be unlikely to win any kind of election. As a result, the United Nations and others have suggested that the interim government operate with a very narrow mandate - essentially "keeping the lights on and paying the bills of the street-sweepers." Specifically, the suggestion was that the interim government make no decisions regarding major economic or foreign policy issues. However, the constitution as drafted provides no limits on what issues the interim government, in whatever form it takes, may decide - including continuing the U.S.-initiated privatization policies, negotiating major replacement oil contracts, and most significantly signing a Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S. to provide an Iraqi "invitation" to the 100,000+ U.S. troops who will remain in Iraq."

Issues missing from the constitution. The new document does not address crucial questions even for the interim period itself. It does not identify the means of choosing the new interim government beyond "deliberations and consultations."


U.S. officials including Paul Bremer had already announced they would veto any constitution that in their view would make Iraq an "Islamic state."

Well, the full text of the Geneva Conventions are available online, so if you'd care to point out the bit which says this?

No problem...

These articles refer to both the (sorry Hague conventions specifically) Geneva Convention and the former Iraqi constitution. I couldn't find a text of the former Iraqi constitution as you can imagine everything in Google refers to the new one.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-09.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-02.htm

Yes, they did. You think this is a bad thing? Note - before you answer, consider that you used the plural form of government. Just how many do you think the US should have permitted?

Firstly it's not up to the US government to decide to permit or omit anything...they did invade against the UN Charter if you remember. Anything they do should be based on that presumption.

How, once you allow more than one, do you decide which has jurisdiction and authority?

Plural as in local ones set up after chaos insued. They could have very easily brought these local governments together and they could have better represented the Iraqi people. They could have also drafted a constitution.
But that didn't happen for obvious reasons. They were all dismantled and the GC was selected by the CPA.

And the UN has said that they won't work, and has suggested its version of elections instead.

And in the Iraqi constitution it says...

This government shall be constituted in accordance with a process of extensive deliberations and consultations with cross-sections of the Iraqi people conducted by the Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority and possibly in consultation with the United Nations.

Are the UN also wrong? The US, incidentally, has abandoned the caucus idea following the UN findings, so should we conclude from this that the UN is being equally impositional and unfair?

Being that the UN is a somewhat impartial org in this case I'd say they have more legitimacy than the US imposed ones. Besides, in your own words, they merely suggested.
Furthermore the UN didn't illegally invade and begin to dismantle the legal infrastructure of a country.
Now saying that I'm not familiar with the UN proposal.

Or is it just that when the US thinks something is a good idea, its automatically wrong, but when the UN thinks something is a good idea, its automatically right?

Yea that's what I'm trying to say.

You may like to believe that the UN is more impartial in terms of its decisions etc.

It is...especially considering it didn't invade Iraq and completely dismantle the legal infrastructure (for lack of a better term) as well as economic infrastructure (besides killing several thousands of people).

but the simple fact is that this is not what you are arguing.

Ummmm maybe not....but....

You are simply saying that the US is wrong to have imposed somethign...not that its wrong because the something it tries to impose is not a good something in the first place.

...that's not what I'm saying either.