NationStates Jolt Archive

The Sunnis have rejected the US backed Constitution effectively stopping it dead in its tracks as the Sunnis have a veto.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4192122.stm


That'll learn ya for trying to force something through against the will of the people.

Yeah... are you talking of the same Constitution whose writing assembly postposed their agreement four times?

"effectivley has a veto"

we don't really know what the voters are going to do come october, we can only speculate

"effectivley has a veto"

we don't really know what the voters are going to do come october, we can only speculate

Well thats true- but due to the polarisation in Iraq they would seem to vote en bloc under their leaders guidance.

Either way, it doesn't bode well.
:(

I hope it DOES get rejected! Serve ya right for trying to run roughshod over a minority group. I only wish all minorities HERE would band together to stop the fucking Republicans from running roughshod over here.

Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam!!

I hope it DOES get rejected! Serve ya right for trying to run roughshod over a minority group. I only wish all minorities HERE would band together to stop the fucking Republicans from running roughshod over here.

Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam!!

What minority group is it trying to run over?

What minority group is it trying to run over?

Well, for starters, homosexuals...blacks (trying to get rid of Affirmative Action) Democrats and liberals, anyone with an opposite opinion of Bush...he does NOT play nice with the other side. He claimed to be a uniter not a divider, but he lied.
Let's see...other minorities...how about trying to run over non-christians? His faith-biased (sic) initiatives would get rid of some government funded welfare programs, forcing non-christian recipients to go hat in hand to the Christians for help...and accept a huge dose of proseltyzing along with any help recieved, which is just plain wrong....want me to go on?

What minority group is it trying to run over?

Sunnis. Yeah, them.

Well, for starters, homosexuals...blacks (trying to get rid of Affirmative Action) Democrats and liberals, anyone with an opposite opinion of Bush...he does NOT play nice with the other side. He claimed to be a uniter not a divider, but he lied.
Let's see...other minorities...how about trying to run over non-christians? His faith-biased (sic) initiatives would get rid of some government funded welfare programs, forcing non-christian recipients to go hat in hand to the Christians for help...and accept a huge dose of proseltyzing along with any help recieved, which is just plain wrong....want me to go on?

Sorry, I was meaning the Iraqi constitution, not the U.S. Unless that's what you meant...

I really should be more specific in the future...

Sunnis. Yeah, them.

Ah. Thanks. I'll look into it.

It was a piece of crap document anyway.

Alright. Now that I've fully read the article (Yeah, I know. Slow reader. Sorry.), I'm still a bit unsure as to how it's against the Sunnis. Is it not giving them just representation? Is it discriminating? Does anyone know the details with links to provide me?

Thanks in advance.

(Note: I'm just trying to see what it's saying, not contesting whether or not it's running over minority groups)

I don't really think this constitution discriminates unfairly to the Sunnis. They have been the dominant force in Iraq under the Baath party, but are a minority and don't control the oil-rich regions of Iraq. Personally I think they just don't want the Kurds or Shiites to take a fair proportion of power as the Sunni would lose out.

I really have no idea how Iraq is supposed to become a democracy. It's only one country because of the decisions of colonialists, and has been held together by dictators ever since. You've got three main groups that don't like each other, a history of dictatorship and then they're likely to choose to become a theocracy anyway...

I don't really think this constitution discriminates unfairly to the Sunnis. They have been the dominant force in Iraq under the Baath party, but are a minority and don't control the oil-rich regions of Iraq. Personally I think they just don't want the Kurds or Shiites to take a fair proportion of power as the Sunni would lose out.

I really have no idea how Iraq is supposed to become a democracy. It's only one country because of the decisions of colonialists, and has been held together by dictators ever since. You've got three main groups that don't like each other, a history of dictatorship and then they're likely to choose to become a theocracy anyway...

That's the point. They don't want to lose the control of oil, the new Constitution would place them in the center zone of Iraq, a wasteland.

And, about the second paragraph, you're true. "Lo que no puede ser, no puede ser, y además es imposible". The US troops can't do magic.

That's the point. They don't want to lose the control of oil, the new Constitution would place them in the center zone of Iraq, a wasteland.

And, about the second paragraph, you're true. "Lo que no puede ser, no puede ser, y además es imposible". The US troops can't do magic.

But the centre is where the Sunni are, at least in greatest numbers. They don't want to give up their dominance. Although as the article says, the US is helping them maintain power because the insurrection is largely Sunni.

The constitution essentially writes Iraqi women out of the narrative. The rights they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship are being swept away by religious fundamentalism, and the US is only too happy to make that concession at the negotiating table. So much for those oh-so-high principles.

Good to see the Constitution is failing. You only have to look at Europe to see that you don't need the thing anyway.

So the US are helping the Saddam people to maintain the power? What kind of joke is this so called war?

So the US are helping the Saddam people to maintain the power? What kind of joke is this so called war?

They are finally realising that they need the people who used to run the country secularly- the Sunnis. Now that they took them out of the equation- the Shiites and Kurds are carving up Iraq into pro- Iran provinces (which im sure the US REALLY love now) and 'Kurdistan'.

The country WILL fracture unless the Sunnis are incorporated fairly.

I don't know which group pisses me off more... The Shiites for this sharia bullshit or the Sunni's for refusing to accept the fact that they no longer rule Iraq single handedly...

At this point I'd rather just see a series of independant states than this bullshit...

They are finally realising that they need the people who used to run the country secularly- the Sunnis. Now that they took them out of the equation- the Shiites and Kurds are carving up Iraq into pro- Iran provinces (which im sure the US REALLY love now) and 'Kurdistan'.

The country WILL fracture unless the Sunnis are incorporated fairly.

About the shiis, maybe you're true, although I don't know... maybe they want to be independent from Iran. But, the Kurds, strongly won't work for a pro-Iran country, since they want to be independent. They have fought for centuries for their own country, which covers parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Selling their territory to Iran would be killing their own reasons for existence. What they want is an authonomic province from the central power.

Yep. Sunni-land and Not-Sunni-land. Either that or federalism, the thing where you have provinces that hold alot of power, but are, in the end, under a central leadership, which may or may not have been elected.

At this point I'd rather just see a series of independant states than this bullshit...
The problem with partitioning is, it usually results in an awesome level of violence. As the British found when they gave India and the new Pakistan independence. Ethnic cleansing all along the border.

And the British are the undisputed masters of colonial administration, the architects of Iraq in the first place. I would rather my country stayed out of this little project, but on the other hand, I can see how incompetently it would be handled if left in American hands.

Originally posted by: Lyric

blacks( trying to get rid of Affirmative Action.)

Affirmative Action makes no sense whatsoever. Employers ought to hire people based on how well they'll be able to do the job, not their ethniciy.

The Brits always seemed to favour partitioning as a foreign policy, didn't they? Usually leading to a civil war, granted, but at least the people busy themselves with slaughtering one another rather than slaughtering their colonial masters.

What a moronic excuse of a thread. First off, all this means is they can only make future changes, and don't expect a constitution to be signed overnight. It is going to take time.

The problem with partitioning is, it usually results in an awesome level of violence. As the British found when they gave India and the new Pakistan independence. Ethnic cleansing all along the border.

And the British are the undisputed masters of colonial administration, the architects of Iraq in the first place. I would rather my country stayed out of this little project, but on the other hand, I can see how incompetently it would be handled if left in American hands.

Yeah, giving the independence to the kurds will be A REAL PROBLEM for the Iran+Turkey+Iraq+Syria-US relationships, and a living danger for the region...

The problem with partitioning is, it usually results in an awesome level of violence. As the British found when they gave India and the new Pakistan independence. Ethnic cleansing all along the border.

And the British are the undisputed masters of colonial administration, the architects of Iraq in the first place. I would rather my country stayed out of this little project, but on the other hand, I can see how incompetently it would be handled if left in American hands.

There will a huge amount of violence either way as far as I can see. In the long run partitioning (expecially if overseen carefully to prevent tragedy) Iraq will lead to a more peaceful country where seculars aren't forced to live under sharia law and where the Sunni's will have the control they so crave, if only over themselves.

The only thing that worries me is that the Kurds in Turkey might rise up to become a part of Kurdistan, which is likely to make the Turk's unhappy about such a plan.

What a moronic excuse of a thread. First off, all this means is they can only make future changes, and don't expect a constitution to be signed overnight. It is going to take time.

Moronic how? It highlights that even on paper, democracy in Iraq is very hard to imagine. The Sunni are basically in a position where they will lose a huge amount of power unless the country is run un-democratically. The US is likely to agree to that as well because the Shiites could align with Iran and the Kurds could cause all sorts of trouble if they are allowed democratic rights.

Moronic how? It highlights that even on paper, democracy in Iraq is very hard to imagine. The Sunni are basically in a position where they will lose a huge amount of power unless the country is run un-democratically. The US is likely to agree to that as well because the Shiites could align with Iran and the Kurds could cause all sorts of trouble if they are allowed democratic rights.

I think any person is capable of wanting democracy, including the Sunnis, the kurds and the shi'ia. I do not see how a person of a ethnic group is incapable of taking part in democracy. You people who are naysayers make it seem like Iraqis are incapable of being democratic and must go down the way of dictatorship. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. Remember the US had something called the Articles of Confederation, and that did not work out so something new was done.

I think every person, every ethnic group, and every nationality on this planet is capable of democracy that is compatible with their own culture.

Civil war no matter how you slice it. Wether it starts with the Americans there, or after they leave, there will be civil war. I would put money on it and I don't gamble.

Civil war no matter how you slice it. Wether it starts with the Americans there, or after they leave, there will be civil war. I would put money on it and I don't gamble.

My.. and I thought some people wanted failure.

I think every person, every ethnic group, and every nationality on this planet is capable of democracy that is compatible with their own culture.
Yeah, but when? Try saying that in Tsarist Russia and see where that gets you. There is a time and place for stuff. Maybe we should leave people to it and let their deaths be on their conscience, instead of shouldering the 'white man's burden' for yet another century.

We should have let the Iraqis work it out for themselves, starting with Saddam Hussein's death of old age. Sounds harsh, but I'll be honest, I don't rate my tax money being used to kill people just so they can die free.

My.. and I thought some people wanted failure.

It's not that I want it to fail.. it's just the way it is. Some times it is what it is.. I wish they could all hold hands and sing Kumba around the camp fire, however I'd be pretty naive to believe that is going to happen anytime soon.

Yeah, but when? Try saying that in Tsarist Russia and see where that gets you. There is a time and place for stuff. Maybe we should leave people to it and let their deaths be on their conscience, instead of shouldering the 'white man's burden' for yet another century.


I guess I'm optimistic and too much so for pessimists who love the idea of civil war and failure.

I guess I'm optimistic and too much so for pessimists who love the idea of civil war and failure.

There is a difference between being a pessimists and being a realist. I like to think I'm a realist.

I think any person is capable of wanting democracy, including the Sunnis, the kurds and the shi'ia. I do not see how a person of a ethnic group is incapable of taking part in democracy. You people who are naysayers make it seem like Iraqis are incapable of being democratic and must go down the way of dictatorship. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. Remember the US had something called the Articles of Confederation, and that did not work out so something new was done.

I think every person, every ethnic group, and every nationality on this planet is capable of democracy that is compatible with their own culture.

I believe that those groups are capable of democracy, sure, but the US is involved and their primary goal is to have a stable ally that does not ally with fundamentalists. While they will claim all the way along that they are there for democracy, if democracy turns out to be inconvenient the US will support a less democratic system. Personally I'd love to see the Kurds get their own state as they are the largest stateless people in the world.

There is a difference between being a pessimists and being a realist. I like to think I'm a realist.

Just because you think you're a realist doesn't make it so. I'm moreso the realist.

I'm moreso the realist.

Just because you believe that, doesn't make it so.... ;)

Just because you think you're a realist doesn't make it so. I'm moreso the realist.
No, you are not. You naively believe there are no limits to what can be achieved in any given moment. Life does not work like that. Deal with it.

Points to ponder:

The Politics of Sovereignty (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20050614&articleId=61)

How can a permanent constitution be written while there are more than 150,000 American soldiers waging military operations every day on Iraqi cities and villages, while prisons are full with political prisoners, while people live under martial law and cannot gather freely, and while the US controls security forces, the army, the economy, the courts, and all other relevant institutions?

Iraq's Sunnis reject constitution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4192122.stm)

Sunnis remain implacably opposed to provisions in the constitution which exclude former Baath party officials from public office and which pave the way towards federalism.

They are concerned that allowing for federalism may lead to the creation of an autonomous Shia area in southern Iraq - like the Kurdish north but under Iran's influence.

They fear greater autonomy for the Kurdish north and Shia south could divide the country, and compromise their share of revenues from those oil-rich regions.

Just because you think you're a realist doesn't make it so. I'm moreso the realist.

Not in this case... I agree with the vague idea that all people are capable of democracy, but in this case they are trying to make a democracy out of an artificial country that has only been held together through brute force. With no shared sense of nationhood I can only see Iraq as three democracies in the near future. Even peaceful and developed democracies have trouble when there are distinct ethnic regions, look at the Basques and even Quebec.

I guess I'm optimistic and too much so for pessimists who love the idea of civil war and failure.
The problem stems from their perspective that they don't want American style democracy?

The irony of all this is that Saddam's Iraq was more secular than the NEW Iraq will be?

I think any person is capable of wanting democracy, including the Sunnis, the kurds and the shi'ia. I do not see how a person of a ethnic group is incapable of taking part in democracy. You people who are naysayers make it seem like Iraqis are incapable of being democratic and must go down the way of dictatorship. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. Remember the US had something called the Articles of Confederation, and that did not work out so something new was done.

I think every person, every ethnic group, and every nationality on this planet is capable of democracy that is compatible with their own culture.

When an ethnic group happens to be a minority with greatly divergent and unconsolable opinions from the majority, there will be problems. A historical example of such a problem is the American Civil War. Is it really so unthinkable to you that the people of Iraq might not want to be ONE democracy, but several? Read the parts of this thread about the Sunnis's position (politically and geographically) in Iraq to see why this sounds simpler than it is.

What minority group is it trying to run over?

After reading some other posts, I realized you were referring to the Iraqi Constitution, and who was IT running over...rather than the republicans running over whom over here.

So, I'll answer that question...the Sunni's are being run over by this Constitution, no consideration is being given them. Also women and homosexuals are being run over, because the constitution specifically states no law may overrule Islamic Law. Islamic Law is not known for it's kindness and compassion for...or tolerance of women's rights or gay rights.

Basically, the proposed Iraqi Constitution is a great big hunk of shit, and I hope it does get overruled!

To think our boys and girls all died over there to create an Islamic "democracy" that will deny most of it's minority citizens a voice...is appalling to me.

Alright. Now that I've fully read the article (Yeah, I know. Slow reader. Sorry.), I'm still a bit unsure as to how it's against the Sunnis. Is it not giving them just representation? Is it discriminating? Does anyone know the details with links to provide me?

Thanks in advance.

(Note: I'm just trying to see what it's saying, not contesting whether or not it's running over minority groups)

Well, basically, as I understand it...the Kurds would have their autonomous area in the oil-rich north...and the Shiites want a similar autonomous region in the oil-rich South...leaving the Sunni's who are majority only in some Central areas, where there is not much oil...basically out of the common treasure of Iraq's oil...which should belong to ALL the Iraqi people. But the Kurds and Shiites are trying to carve out their own sweet deal and leave the Sunnis out in the cold.

This is why the majority of the insurgents we are now fighting in Iraq are Sunnis!

Originally posted by: Lyric

blacks( trying to get rid of Affirmative Action.)

Affirmative Action makes no sense whatsoever. Employers ought to hire people based on how well they'll be able to do the job, not their ethniciy.

Only when you can honestly say that an EQUALLY QUALIFIED black man has the same chance of getting the job/raise/promotion...as the WHITE man...can you actually say Affirmative Action has become obsolete.

Only when you can honestly say that an EQUALLY QUALIFIED white WOMAN has the same chance of getting the job/raise/promotion...as the white MAN...can you actually say Affirmative Action has become obsolete.

We aren't there yet.

It's not that I want it to fail.. it's just the way it is. Some times it is what it is.. I wish they could all hold hands and sing Kumba around the camp fire, however I'd be pretty naive to believe that is going to happen anytime soon.

No, us liberals don't want Iraq to fail...bu those of us liberals who see the problems want THIS PARTICULAR CONSTITUION to fail, because we see that it can only lead to Civil War, and possbly the fracturing of the entire country.

We'd love nothing better than to see a free, fair democracy actually WORK. We're pragmatic enough to know the current proposal ain't gonna make it. And no amount of wishing will make it so.

Not in this case... I agree with the vague idea that all people are capable of democracy, but in this case they are trying to make a democracy out of an artificial country that has only been held together through brute force. With no shared sense of nationhood I can only see Iraq as three democracies in the near future. Even peaceful and developed democracies have trouble when there are distinct ethnic regions, look at the Basques and even Quebec.

Hell, look at what happened to Yugoslavia when Tito kicked the bucket.

And just where on yourt map is Yugoslavia anymore?? Oh, that's right...it's about six smaller independent nations, each with it's own ethnic majority. Yugoslavia didn't exist, initially...if you remember Serbia was it's own country prior to WW1.

After reading some other posts, I realized you were referring to the Iraqi Constitution, and who was IT running over...rather than the republicans running over whom over here.

So, I'll answer that question...the Sunni's are being run over by this Constitution, no consideration is being given them. Also women and homosexuals are being run over, because the constitution specifically states no law may overrule Islamic Law. Islamic Law is not known for it's kindness and compassion for...or tolerance of women's rights or gay rights.

Basically, the proposed Iraqi Constitution is a great big hunk of shit, and I hope it does get overruled!

To think our boys and girls all died over there to create an Islamic "democracy" that will deny most of it's minority citizens a voice...is appalling to me.


The Constitution does state that Islam is gonna be the basis for Iraqi Law, but it also states that no law can go against the ideals of democracy or go against human rights.

The Constitution does protect women's rights, as for gay rights well it wasn't mentioned. But last time I checked, they are humans too so they get the same rights as everyone else.

The Constitution does state that Islam is gonna be the basis for Iraqi Law, but it also states that no law can go against the ideals of democracy or go against human rights.

The Constitution does protect women's rights, as for gay rights well it wasn't mentioned. But last time I checked, they are humans too so they get the same rights as everyone else.

Try again. It says no law can go against the ideals of the Islamic religion.

The problem with partitioning is, it usually results in an awesome level of violence. As the British found when they gave India and the new Pakistan independence. Ethnic cleansing all along the border.

And the British are the undisputed masters of colonial administration, the architects of Iraq in the first place. I would rather my country stayed out of this little project, but on the other hand, I can see how incompetently it would be handled if left in American hands.

The idiot left is both elated and annoyed at anything having to do with Iraq.

Elated, because everything can be colored as "gone wrong" and "a quagmire",
which they can blame on whomever it is today that they want to blame
somethng on...

..and annoyed, because everything can be colored as "gone wrong" and "a
quagmire", which would "annoy anyone who REALLY wishes for the forces of
truth justice and the (anti) American way" to triumph.

Oh wait,.. they can't possibly be elated and annoyed by the same thing, can
they..!?

Why,.. YES..! Yes they can,.. and they're most proud of their "versatility".

My opinion,.. we should establish firm bases in all sectors of Iraq,.. turn over
the country to whomever we wish that says they will "work to make Iraq a
great US partner",.. if they "fail" in their mission to develop into a peaceful
society we bomb them into the dirt again, tell them to try again,.. rinse and
repeat until they comply and produce something acceptable to us (America)
and to their citizenry.

But then,.. I'm a dreamer. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 28, 2005

The complete text of the final draft Iraqi Constitution, as translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press. Differences between this text and the version Aug. 22 are in parentheses:

PREAMBLE

We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the (messengers), prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.

Recognizing God's right upon us; obeying the call of our nation and our citizens; responding to the call of our religious and national leaders (and our national forces and politicians) and the insistence of our great religious authorities and our leaders and our reformers, we went by the millions for the first time in our history to the ballot box, men and women, young and old, on Jan. 30, 2005, remembering the pains of the despotic band's sectarian oppression; inspired by the suffering of Iraq's martyrs -- Sunni and Shiite, Arab, Kurd and Turkomen, and the remaining brethren in all communities -- inspired by the injustice against the holy cities (and the south) in the popular uprising and (burnt with the sorrows of the mass graves, the marches and Dujail and others); recalling the agonies of the national oppression in the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, Anfal and against the Faili Kurds; inspired by the tragedies of the Turkomen in Bashir, and as in other parts of Iraq, (the people of the western region have suffered from the liquidation of its leaders, symbols, tribal leaders and displacing its intellectuals, so we worked hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder) to create a new Iraq, Iraq of the future, without sectarianism, racial strife, regionalism, discrimination and (elimination).

Terrorism and "takfir" (Editors Note: takfir means to declare someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all.

We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined -- men and women, old and young -- to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.

We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty.

CHAPTER ONE: BASIC PRINCIPLES

Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.

Article (2):

1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. (/snip)