Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future. - Page 3




 
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
 
September 7th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
Let's all remember that this Constitunal draft is just that a draft. Kinks can be worked out after a draft has been scrutinized and either accepted by a majority or agreed upon to tweak the final draft with ammendments
later. I don't see President Bush intervening in the process at all and I don't think there is real evidence to that. This is simply the Democratic process in action.
September 7th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
italian guy

Well only Saddam knows that for sure. I think there were two reasons why Saddam acted the way he did.

1. Saddam is a bully. Like all bullies he liked scaring people by flexing his muscle alittle bit. All he had to to was delay the inspectors 10 minutes and he was in the newspaper headlines again, while his neighboors and the west fretted about what he would/could to do. He did the same thing with his Air Defence systems. He would turn them on and lock up allied planes not because he wanted to start a war but because he wanted to scare people. I think Saddam unlike Khaddafi was too arrogant (or too stupid) to keep a low profile.

2. Its now known that the Iraqi WMD Scientists had lied to Saddam about the extent of the program, probably because they knew if Saddam found out the truth they would be all executed. So they told Saddam what he wanted to hear, and Saddam believed it.

Which ever was the case, just because Saddam didnt coorporate didnt necessarily mean he was hiding something. The USA and Europe made the mistaken assumption that it did.
September 7th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
italian guy

Well only Saddam knows that for sure. I think there were two reasons why Saddam acted the way he did.

1. Saddam is a bully. Like all bullies he liked scaring people by flexing his muscle alittle bit. All he had to to was delay the inspectors 10 minutes and he was in the newspaper headlines again, while his neighboors and the west fretted about what he would/could to do. He did the same thing with his Air Defence systems. He would turn them on and lock up allied planes not because he wanted to start a war but because he wanted to scare people. I think Saddam unlike Khaddafi was too arrogant (or too stupid) to keep a low profile.

2. Its now known that the Iraqi WMD Scientists had lied to Saddam about the extent of the program, probably because they knew if Saddam found out the truth they would be all executed. So they told Saddam what he wanted to hear, and Saddam believed it.

Which ever was the case, just because Saddam didnt coorporate didnt necessarily mean he was hiding something. The USA and Europe made the mistaken assumption that it did.
When someone in your neighborhood goes around saying he has a large amount of biochemical weapons and substances in his basement and the whole city has agreed that those substances are banned but the guy refuses to comply, and on the contrary he gets around bullying and he doesn't let cops and neighbors in to see what the situation is all about, then please tell me what you do. Do you authorize the use of force? If so, ok, a couple of cops tie him up and break in. They mess the house up and find nothing. One day later, was that use of force justified in your view?
Well he hadn't been cooperating like you said but that didn't necessarily mean he was hiding something. In fact he was just a bully. So what?
Wasn't the burden of the proof on him?

Hey this is going here.
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
September 7th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88

lol...you sound like you are so logical but you are not..how ironic

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?

open you eyes and read
WARmachine88, this is your second warning, if you do not immediately change your behavior on these forums, you will be banned.
September 7th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Italian guy

That just it, Saddam never said he had WMD (on the contrary he said he didnt) he just pretended that he did. 2nd of all they never found the slightest proof that suggested that he did. The only thing Saddam did was not to comply. The USA, Isreal, Russia and China are all in Violation of the UN rules, nobody wants to invade them.

Your're right, we should get back to topic.
September 8th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
It is true that you can never satifsfy everybody, but we are talking about a cruicial poltical group here and this group is ignored. Sunnis actually called the new consititution illegal and they threaten to veto it later (in theory, they can do it easily, as I have written in my past posts). I am deeply concerned that past 1 or 2 years' efforts of rebuidling Iraq's political system will be wasted if we just rush forward with a bad piece of consititution and rejected. Everything will start from beginning again, and when are we going to establish a firm government and end insurgency? and when will american troops come home?
September 8th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
We? How are you part of "we"?
September 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
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.

It is not up to me to manipulate what exists in this world...

Btw, whats your problem with removal of Saddam?

Quote:
NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ic.php?t=15112
September 8th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Pheonix

I dont weep for Saddam, I just dont think it was worth the price we paid in lives, money, and international respect considering the very little risk he posed to the world. He was boxed in only a threat to his own people, and we are not the Worlds Police Force.

Our attention was better spent elsewhere, like killing Osama. Who I would like to remind everyone here is still at large.
September 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Although I agree again in most part, but I disagree that we don't care about what Dictators and despots doing to their own people.

And Saddam not once but too many times used his muscle against every one he could including, Kurds, Iranians and Kuwaitis and his own poor people.

I guess, the Bush Admin thought that Saddam might be into some form of revenge and get together with OBL and pose a bigger risk to the world.

No one could take a chance not dealing with Saddam.

Btw, Who do you think should be the World Police?

Germany? France? UN? China? Russia?

I agree that the US is not the world police and shouldn't be at all but remember that US has saved many many lives since 1941.