Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future. - Page 2




 
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
 
September 6th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
as i have said, the veto of this consititution in a referendum is pretty easy for Sunnis to do (majority in 4 provinces will be enough, or 3, i forgot).
September 6th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
First, nowhere does WARmachine88 state what makes the Iraqi constitution "bad".

Second, it's a little bit early to be prophesizing its failure.

Third, from the article WARmachine88 highlighted:

Quote:
If the constitution does not win national support, the Iraqi government may have to dissolve, and there could be elections for a new transitional national assembly.
I'm not sure how that translates to "civil war" but if by factional fighting within a nation is your gist, then there's civil war there now.
September 6th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Remember, our (American) Constitution was not completely ratified for four years after draft. Everyone here is just fighting for their people to get as much as possible from this but I think that all concerned see this as an opportunity to finally become a true Democracy. Anything beats what they had before (genocide, murder, and atrocities). I won't make a claim of total omniscience as some here have but I pray that this evolves into a 21st Century Democracy instead of a 5th Century Theocracy.
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
September 7th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
First, nowhere does WARmachine88 state what makes the Iraqi constitution "bad".

Second, it's a little bit early to be prophesizing its failure.

Third, from the article WARmachine88 highlighted:

Quote:
If the constitution does not win national support, the Iraqi government may have to dissolve, and there could be elections for a new transitional national assembly.
I'm not sure how that translates to "civil war" but if by factional fighting within a nation is your gist, then there's civil war there now.

Is a consititution bad if there is a huge portioin of population rejects it? Is it bad if it is in grave danger of being vetoed and the process of making a consititution will have to start again? is it bad that it of Sunnis even more and the root of insurgency will never die?

Admin edit: No personal insults/attacks will be tolerated!
September 7th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
that is how a democracy is gonna work there.

If they don't like that Constitution, they will hold talks over a better one!
September 7th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
it is wonderful, but i just dont like how U.S pushes it and intervene all the time. If Bush is not prepared for an excruciatingly slow process of drafting a consititution that can satisfy all sides (despite their huge differences), he should not even be in Iraq.
September 7th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Good evidence for those who still think Saddam didn't possess any sort of WMD

Iran has 100,000 chemical weapons victims

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line...0485180322.htm

Quote:
Iran has 100,000 victims of chemical weapons, 50,000 of whom are in critical condition and some others are exposed to gradual death, a senior Iranian official said here Tuesday.
Quote:
imposed war on Iran and the use of chemical weapons by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein
September 7th, 2005  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
it is wonderful, but i just dont like how U.S pushes it and intervene all the time. If Bush is not prepared for an excruciatingly slow process of drafting a consititution that can satisfy all sides (despite their huge differences), he should not even be in Iraq.
I am sure you have heard the quote:

"You can satisfy some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can never satisfy all of the people all of the time"

I believe that we are prepared to be there as long as it takes. Remember, everyone wants what is best for their people, and a piece of the pie, no one wants to be left out.

Do you happen to have a copy or a link to a copy of their constitution handy (the work in progress)? Do you know what topics are being debated? If so please let us know.
September 7th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix_aim54
Good evidence for those who still think Saddam didn't possess any sort of WMD

That's totally misrepresenting what people are saying.

Nobody denies the Saddam used Chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds during the 1980's. What they are say and what 3 different weapons inspectors have confirmed that his WMD were destroyed at the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War and that since then it did not represent a threat to the United States.

You can try and spin it as much as you want, but to this date there still remain no evidence to dispute that fact. Even the White House has acklowledged this.
September 7th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix_aim54
Good evidence for those who still think Saddam didn't possess any sort of WMD

That's totally misrepresenting what people are saying.

Nobody denies the Saddam used Chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds during the 1980's. What they are say and what 3 different weapons inspectors have confirmed that his WMD were destroyed at the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War and that since then it did not represent a threat to the United States.

You can try and spin it as much as you want, but to this date there still remain no evidence to dispute that fact. Even the White House has acklowledged this.
Yes BUT. Don't you believe that the burden of the proof was on him?
On the international scene other countries, like Ukraine, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and now Lybia, has agreed to accept UN and even other countries' inspectors. They honestly showed all they had, they opened their bunkers, their facilities.
Saddam Hussein made the whole world think he had those weapons. He repeatedly said that. Even his closest advisors and top military aides thought they had those weapons. They were shocked at the eve of the war when they learned Saddam had been faking it for years.
Now you know he had had those weapons, he had used them and killed hundred of thousands, he kept saying he had them. The UN, Russia, Britain and France thought he had them too.
If he did not have them, why didn't it open the doors and proved it? Like others had done. The burden of the proof was on him.
He was just playing a game he got burned playing.
Next time he won't pretend to have a matchbox in his pocket if he doesn't I tell you.