Posted on 07/26/2005 12:24:14 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
I agree Iran is the big winner in all of this. Saddam is gone and they share a border with a much weaker former enemy. They can wait us out all while funneling insurgents and bomb making material into Iraq. They've already begun forming alliances with Iraqi officials.
The Iraqis aren't going to ratify this IMO.
Hardly a panic, just a realistic view of what may happen given the consitent talk coming from all sides.
Perhaps you need to read beyond the press releases and not just assume it is wrong.
Look, without democracy they are about 700 years behind. With it, they're about 300 years behind."
This equates Islam and people from the ME culture with Christianity and people from the Anglo-Judeo Christian culture, and is for that reason idiotic.
Yes but the founding fathers had no official state religion, even though much of the framework (though denied by the left) was based in Christianity.
Much of the spirit was, but the Founders were wise enough to refrain from tying the Constitution to the tenets of any one faith. Too bad we didn't insist that they do the same.
Freedom for Arabs means freedom from Islam if they want to leave. This is what we fought for in Iraq, and now we are throwing it away. Disgusting.
How can you make your statement after having read the following?:
"Islam is the official religion of the state and is the main source of legislation," reads the draft published in the government newspaper Al-Sabah. "No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated."
Using the term Islam and Democracy jointly is an oxymoron.
Yes, we must have known that the government formed by and for the Iraqis would not resemble Western democracy. What they develop themselves will at the very least be their own.
If they evolve into a West hating terrorist country again, we at least have the GPS coordinates of every target we want.
Well, suit yourself. So go tell that to the guy I'm responding to, who thinks that their democracy has to look exactly like ours, apparently.
I was all for the invasion, too. I deeply believe in freedom, including religous freedom. But, all those religous guys (Muslims, Christians, Catholics, etc) are just nuts in many ways. They talk on high like they're buds with God. They cite the Bible or Quran like they are going over a scientific fact. People, whether you belive in God or not, it's all made up.
The fact that Iraqi's have chosen Islamic law is pathetic. God really doesn't want women to have rights? Give me a break. On the other hand, when I hear nots in this country freak out over Mel Gibson's movie, I'm equally as annoyed. Human kind needs to get a grip. Anyone claiming to speak for God has a major inferiority complex, is a manipulator, or is simply starved for attention. Luckily, in this country, we're only influenced by religion and not governed by it.
On an aside. It would be nice to think heaven or virgens are waiting for me on the other side. However, I was already dead once. It was the period from the beginning of all time until my birth. I expect the period from my death until the end of time to be quite similar. It's really not that hard to figurt out. Now, go be nice to each other......Muslims included.
You need to learn to read. I don't think their Constitution needs to look exactly like ours. At a minimum it should not be openly biased against women, infidels, and jews.
AMEN! American blood shed and American money spent for this. "Nation Building". Right. It's disgusting. How about building our own nation? Could have used all those billions of war dollars securing our own boarders, for starters.
>>Then let's get the hell out and leave them to their own devices. Not another American life for Islam!
There is a difference between a constitution and the law. Laws are a separate matter and must be consistent with the constitution. So a constitution that both preserves democracy and requires that laws be consistent with Islam is sound, even if the former contradicts the latter. In effect, it prevents anti-democratic legislation from being enforced, even if it is Islamic; and it prevents anti-Islamic legislation from being enforced, even if it is democratic.
And why do you get to determine what its minimum standards are? Why do they, for example, have to give women the right to vote, when it took this countr about 140 years and 19 amendments to give them that privilege?
It's a two way street. Jaafari can convey our wishes as well, becomes a useful backchannel to the Iranian leadership.
Downside is we overthrew a decidely secular, albeit brutal dictator only to subject the secularists of Iraq to a virtual Sharia state in the South.
And Sadam won his elections with a 100% vote, and Mugabe is building cities, and the Saudis are our friends.
Because it is 2005, not 1787? Should we allow them to have slavery too, after all it was protected by the Constitution for nearly 80 years.
So do I. If Iraq adopts a hardline Islamic constitution, the majority of American conservatives will no longer support the risk of American lives. Why should American lives be put at risk to install a government based on TROP?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.