Iraq Constitution: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms


PDA






Mad Man
July 20, 2005, 01:48 AM
http://www.peeniewallie.com/2005/07/iraqi_bill_of_r.html


Iraqi Bill of Rights creates a socialist dystopia in the desert

A draft copy of the Iraqi Bill of Rights (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf) has been leaked and translated into English. Unfortunately, after reviewing it in its entirety, I can safely say that this regime will fail, and fail miserably, for a variety of reasons. This "Bill of Rights" is a blueprint for a "cradle-to-grave" socialist regime that would make Hillary Rodham salivate with envy. Under this charter, the government is responsible for economic growth, eduction, and providing security to a disarmed, emasculated population.

In place of our 2nd amendment, they get this watered-down mumbo-jumbo:

"Article 23, Clause 3 - Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law."

It's basically what our constitution would look like if you handed a blank sheet of paper to a bunch of weak-kneed Democrats like Hillary Rodham, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Diane Feinstein, and Robert Byrd, and asked them to draw up a new Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's a recipe for a socialist regime. A dystopian society doomed to fail.

Posted by Peenie Wallie (http://www.peeniewallie.com/) on July 19, 2005 at 05:05 PM : Comments (0)

If you enjoyed reading about "Iraq Constitution: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KriegHund
July 20, 2005, 02:04 AM
Youve GOT to be kidding? Right? You ARE kidding? Please say this is a joke. If it isnt, then i hope to god something happens thats like an iraqi revolution, and that they are smart enough to make a REAL ocnstitution.

Not like it matrters anyways with so many guns over there, but that makes me sick anyways.

peacefuljeffrey
July 20, 2005, 02:05 AM
This document contains words to the effect of,
CITIZENS MAY NOT

AND THESE PUKES HAVE THE UNMITIGATED AUDACITY TO CALL THAT A
CONSTITUTION?! :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :barf:



-Jeffrey

bigun15
July 20, 2005, 02:08 AM
That's disgusting. If they don't do something about that everything we've done is going to get reversed.

Solo
July 20, 2005, 02:09 AM
Let's wait and see if its real.

peacefuljeffrey
July 20, 2005, 02:11 AM
Let's wait and see if its real.

...I was just sayin'... :rolleyes:


-Jeffrey

Taurus 66
July 20, 2005, 02:12 AM
Yeah, so far, close to 2,000 of our brave soldiers died so that a communistic law could prevail over the citizens there?? We fought and died for communism! Now there's a slap in the face.

RevDisk
July 20, 2005, 02:31 AM
The section in question.

ARTICLE 23: DUTIES
1. Iraqi citizens are responsible for defending the homeland and preserving its unity.
2. Paying taxes and fiscal fees are a duty for all Iraqi citizens, it being provided that there are no taxes, levies, duties, and fees imposed except by law.
3. Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law.
4. Preserving national unity, protecting state secrets, and defending and supporting the constitution are the duties of every Iraqi citizen.

I'd like to see how they intend to implement Number 3. Seeing as all households have at least one AK47. Currently, Iraq has RKBA rights than the US.

Keep in mind, this is a work in progress. It's not a finished product. Matter of fact, it's a LONG way from finished. Interesting read, not too shabby of a Constitution all and all. I think editting out the healthcare stuff would be a wise move.

As for the people screaming about "Leftist socialist commie liberals", I quote Article 13.

ARTICLE 13
1. Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency.
2. Citizens’ private lives are protected. Citizens may enjoy it in compliance with moral values and decency. No citizen has the right to deviancy in the use of his right or to exercise any of his rights…
[Comment: the second sentence here is incomplete in the original.

Sounds more like something a rabid Right-wing moral-fascist authoritarian type would toss in the Constitution.


There's some wack job stuff in there.

dasmi
July 20, 2005, 02:37 AM
*sigh*
Reads like a first draft of "American Constitution, Part 2."

c_yeager
July 20, 2005, 02:43 AM
First of all THAT is just about the most backwards "constitution" i could imagine. Really, its just a list of what the PEOPLE can or cant do, rather than placing any limitation whatsoever on the government.

No citizen has the right to deviancy in the use of his right or to exercise any of his rights…

Secondly, this particular portion could be twisted to mean ANYTHING AT ALL. Maybe there is a language issue here, but in English "deviancy" means anything outside of "normal". Notice that "normal" is not defined, which means that it can be defined at the governments leisure. Non-violent protesting is deviant, reading the "wrong" sort of books is deviant, engaging in the wrong sports is deviant, hell, voting for the losing candidate in an election fits the definition of deviant. Thats an awefully non-specific term, and a damn scary thing to have in a document that is supposed to guarantee someone's rights.

dasmi
July 20, 2005, 02:44 AM
+1

peacefuljeffrey
July 20, 2005, 02:56 AM
The section in question.
Quote:
ARTICLE 23: DUTIES
1. Iraqi citizens are responsible for defending the homeland and preserving its unity.
2. Paying taxes and fiscal fees are a duty for all Iraqi citizens, it being provided that there are no taxes, levies, duties, and fees imposed except by law.
3. Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law.
4. Preserving national unity, protecting state secrets, and defending and supporting the constitution are the duties of every Iraqi citizen.

I'd like to see how they intend to implement Number 3. Seeing as all households have at least one AK47. Currently, Iraq has RKBA rights than the US.

I'd like to know how they expect Iraqi citizens to uphold their duty under #1 given the restriction of #3. :banghead:

And since when does a proper Constitution impose DUTIES on the CITIZENS?!


Keep in mind, this is a work in progress. It's not a finished product. Matter of fact, it's a LONG way from finished. Interesting read, not too shabby of a Constitution all and all. I think editting out the healthcare stuff would be a wise move.

WHY would you be an apologist for this tripe? Can you not see as the rest of us can that this thing is ALREADY a disaster? The only thing that could save this "work in progress" is to scrap it and start over with something that makes sense.


As for the people screaming about "Leftist socialist commie liberals", I quote Article 13.


Quote:
ARTICLE 13
1. Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency.
2. Citizens’ private lives are protected. Citizens may enjoy it in compliance with moral values and decency. No citizen has the right to deviancy in the use of his right or to exercise any of his rights…
[Comment: the second sentence here is incomplete in the original.

Sounds more like something a rabid Right-wing moral-fascist authoritarian type would toss in the Constitution.

Well, isn't that exact what Islam is about? Governing authority (religious governing authority) dictating what is and is not tolerated "morally"? That qualifies as "rabid Right-wing moral-fascist," to be sure. But please don't confuse it with "rational, reasonable right-wing American." Are you implying a connection there or am I imagining it?

There's some wack job stuff in there.

Let's consider the source. Who's it being written BY, and FOR?
These are people USED to DEMANDING that their religious-political leaders enforce draconian "moral standards." This crap comes as no surprise to me.

-Jeffrey

Taurus 66
July 20, 2005, 02:57 AM
What constitution tells someone the "don'ts" rather than the "do's"??

"Article 23, Clause 3 - Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law."

How would it look in our Bill of Rights?

Amendment I:

Congress shall make laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press; and the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

Amendment II:

A well regulated militia will not be tolerated, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed upon in a heartbeat.

peacefuljeffrey
July 20, 2005, 02:58 AM
2. Citizens’ private lives are protected. Citizens may enjoy it in compliance with moral values and decency. No citizen has the right to deviancy in the use of his right or to exercise any of his rights…

This is so poorly worded, on first reading I took it to mean that the lives of citizens are to be guaranteed protection.

"Citizens' private lives" is too colloquial an idiom to be included in the text of a State document. How about, "The privacy of citizens"?

-Jeffrey

dasmi
July 20, 2005, 03:03 AM
The problem with this document, is that it is being written by the spineless, corrupt, disgusting politicians of today, not the revolutionaries who wrote ours.

Sindawe
July 20, 2005, 03:40 AM
Well, one plus. It is shorter than the EU's Constitution. One thing that struck me while reading through this document....

Article 6 clause 4: There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media except by law.

Okay... :scrutiny:

Note the use of "...except by law." throughout the document. Looks like an easy "out" for the statists in the bunch drafting this. And I have to ask, just WHO is drafing this?

RevDisk
July 20, 2005, 03:59 AM
And I have to ask, just WHO is drafing this?

The drafting committee of the National Assembly. Sound vague? That's intentional. "For security reasons." ;)

Cosmoline
July 20, 2005, 04:18 AM
Don't read too much into it. Outside the US, "constitutions" are rarely worth more than TP. They have no teeth.

ZeroX
July 20, 2005, 04:35 AM
I suppose it depends on what goes into getting a permit.

But I'm not holding my breath.

RevDisk
July 20, 2005, 04:35 AM
First of all THAT is just about the most backwards "constitution" i could imagine. Really, its just a list of what the PEOPLE can or cant do, rather than placing any limitation whatsoever on the government.

You never skimmed the EU Constitution, did ya? If you had to compare the two Constitutions... The draft of the Iraqi Constitution is a Ferrari, the EU Constitution is a rusted out Pinto. Yea, that bad.



Yeah, so far, close to 2,000 of our brave soldiers died so that a communistic law could prevail over the citizens there?? We fought and died for communism! Now there's a slap in the face.

My counterinsurgency instructor beat a phrase into my skull. "If the people do not rise up and take freedom for themselves, their neither deserve freedom nor will they keep it."

I swear, he seems brighter by the day. Gods, that's annoying. I can hear that "I told you so!" line in the back of my mind all the time.



WHY would you be an apologist for this tripe? Can you not see as the rest of us can that this thing is ALREADY a disaster? The only thing that could save this "work in progress" is to scrap it and start over with something that makes sense.

Because Iraq has had a messed up government for a long time. They're just figuring out this democracy thing. I'm watching it the way I've been watching this entire 'liberation' to date. Cynical resignation. They gotta do it themselves. To write their Constitution for them would be uh, "profoundly unwise". To have them write a Constitution, and then forcibly scrap it would be even more unwise. Let them figure it out themselves.

The US Constitution was not the first formation of government in the US. "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" ring a bell? The US didn't adopt the Constitution until May 23, 1788. You're talking a lot of smack on the Iraqi govt without reflecting on our own struggle for democracy.


*I* saw it was gonna be a disaster before the first boot touched the ground. I said so too, repeatedly. I was flamed to a crisp by many folks. If you wanna know why I thought so, see the above quote about freedom. It hadn't a thing to do with the abilities, skill or any other attributes of the US military.


Well, isn't that exact what Islam is about? Governing authority (religious governing authority) dictating what is and is not tolerated "morally"? That qualifies as "rabid Right-wing moral-fascist," to be sure. But please don't confuse it with "rational, reasonable right-wing American." Are you implying a connection there or am I imagining it?

I think you're referring to Sharia? Oh boy. Now there is a can of worms.

Each branch of Islam has its own version of the Sharia, kinda. The Sunni take into account the Qur'an (their holy book), the Hadith (Muhammad's sayings), and ijma (kinda a group meeting, where everyone has a say). The Shiites go by the Qur'an, Muhammad's anecdotes, a group of high ranking clergy and a group of scholars/intellectuals. Toss in local customs for good measure. The Sharia covers to two major groups. Worship and social interaction. If you wanted a more in-depth discussion, PM's would probably be better.

And Islam is not the only religion to establish theocracies, BTW. Most theocracies, of every religion, eventually turn rather nasty at some point(s) in their lifespan.

And yes, you are imagining a connection.



Let's consider the source. Who's it being written BY, and FOR?
These are people USED to DEMANDING that their religious-political leaders enforce draconian "moral standards." This crap comes as no surprise to me.

Good question. No one in the public fully knows. The process is rather shrouded in secrecy, for 'security concerns'.

And BTW, Iraq was VERY secular under the Ba'athists. So the 'moral standards' stuff SHOULD be a surprise to you. I think you have the Iraqis confused with more theocratic countries like Saudi Arabia.

Edit : "People demanding that their political leaders enforce draconian moral standards" Heck, that's the good ol' USA.


This is so poorly worded, on first reading I took it to mean that the lives of citizens are to be guaranteed protection.

"Citizens' private lives" is too colloquial an idiom to be included in the text of a State document. How about, "The privacy of citizens"?

Whatcha expect from a Constitutional process shrouded in secrecy?

MasterPiece Arms.com
July 20, 2005, 04:38 AM
The problem with this document, is that it is being written by the spineless, corrupt, disgusting politicians of today, not the revolutionaries who wrote ours.

That is partially untrue. The people writing the Iraqi constitution are NOT spineless. They ARE corrupt and disgusting, because of the main issue you left out: those writing it ARE GLOBALISTS, and are connected to the same system of power that wrote the U.N. charter. Common knowledge of the power structure, agenda, and motivations of the new world order is dissappearing and it is quite troubling.

When Woodrow Wilson was giving speeches about the new world order, thankfully, an educated Senate threw the "league of nations" in the dumpster where it belonged. Fast forward to today, where we have gunowners, who all over the 1st world are being put on the trains to the ovens (fine, only the gun goes to the oven, but the man he was dies nonetheless), yet are forgetting everything the new world order did to them for 100 years. IT WASN'T "JUST A BUNCH OF LIBERALS" that did it. There is a long term agenda at work, and a bona fide conspiracy.

It is not just a coincidence that the federal corporation went bankrupt and went into receivership in 1933, and then poof one year later came the "National Firearms Act" of 1934 which killed the local militia by establishing federal registration of real weapons, PLUS a gigantic tax (they had REAL dollars back then, so the $200 transfer tax, to them was equivalent to at least $20,000 of our bogus, mostly worthless, "Federal Reserve" credits.)

The translation is this: the Iraqi constitution is being written BY the new world order globalists. It's scary how many GUNOWNERS I meet now who dismiss that like it doesn't matter.

The section in question.
ARTICLE 23: DUTIES
1. Iraqi citizens are responsible for defending the homeland and preserving its unity.
2. Paying taxes and fiscal fees are a duty for all Iraqi citizens, it being provided that there are no taxes, levies, duties, and fees imposed except by law.
3. Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law.
4. Preserving national unity, protecting state secrets, and defending and supporting the constitution are the duties of every Iraqi citizen.

Since Americans have forgotten how to speak globalist, I have to translate the intent of clauses 1 and 3. It's not gibberish. It's not "wack job" stuff. It is very well written by incredibly EVIL people who are part of the globalist system that has totally controlled our national government since 1933.

FIRST, clause 1 translated from globalist into what we speak means this: PERMANENT NATIONAL DRAFT AND PERMANENT FEDERAL STANDING ARMY.
Clause 3 not only sets that in stone, but clause 3 is actually a constitutional BAN on the local militia. What is really, really scary, is that clause 3 and the NFA of 1934, in the end, accomplish the SAME EXACT THING, just by a different route.

By the way, clause 4 is beyond disturbing because it is actually a constitutional and permenent BAN on ANYONE blowing the whistle on future high level government corruption. The "protecting state secrets" line will be used to destroy, threaten, and prevent honest government employees from going public about, well, anything. In this country, the reason we're seeing such a scary DROP in the number of federal whistleblowers, is because they're purging the daylights out of the CIA and the other systematically corrupt appendages to the federal control system. That, and the fact that they've been quietly putting hundreds of whistleblowers in the federal gulags with the help of compliant (actually corrupt) judges which infest the federal judiciary to the point of being nearly universal. The dark side of government is involved in SO MUCH illegal activity, that if someone has an attack of conscience and wants to do the right thing by going public, the federal government will actually prosecute them for the illegal things they (and dozens of others who kept their mouths shut) were probably doing for YEARS with high level approval.

odysseus
July 20, 2005, 05:54 AM
...nice breakdown. However I am not a fan of the tinhat feeling of infowars.com myself.

Having 3 and 4 right next to each other pretty much sums it up. I hope the citizens puke all over it and throw it back. BTW - are they going to be able to vote on whatever document becomes their constitution?

Anyway currently as I see it, I don't see how the majority of anything moves along in Iraq currently...

peeniewallie
July 20, 2005, 06:18 AM
This constitution is so watered down because it's not being written by patriots that wrested control of their country from a hostile regime, but instead is written by the government to assert power over the pigs under their control. It is a furtive, abortion of a constitution that will leave the people of Iraq worse off than they were under Saddam. At least under Saddam, they were allowed to own weapons. So, in theory, they could have overthrown him at any time they chose by rising up. That they didn't do this is an interesting observation.

Be that as it may, after this horrific constitution is enacted, the globalists and New World Order apologists will have exactly what they want. A disarmed populace stewing in the desert, no better off than the Palestinians.

This constitution will actually serve to increase terrorism, as terrorism is the only recourse of a disarmed populace. When they don't have weapons at their disposal necessary to retake their country by force, they will inevitably resort to terrorism to attact attention to their cause, as it is their only option in the face of an omnipotent state.

mfree
July 20, 2005, 09:08 AM
"You never skimmed the EU Constitution, did ya? If you had to compare the two Constitutions... The draft of the Iraqi Constitution is a Ferrari, the EU Constitution is a rusted out Pinto. Yea, that bad."

I'd have my druthers comparing the EU constitution to... hrmm. let's use a rotten 1982 Oldsmobile 88 diesel with no floorboards.

Khaotic
July 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
+1 Peenie, very smart assessment of the situation.

As to why they didn't rise up and throw Saddam out.

Sure he was a bad man, but he was a strong leader, and by maintaining a secular gov managed to avoid so-severely offending religious entities that none of them would call jihad(or lesser equivalent) on him.

He also, like Castro and other dictators we've hassled, had a "threat" to unify his people against, which we thoughtfully provided with our constant harrassment of his nation, which he took personal grudge against since we're the tools who propped him up (to fight khomeni, cause we propped up the shah and the iranians DID rise up and throw HIM out, replacing him with khomeni) in the first place.

I notice the iranians are running their own affairs right now, and have ever since they chucked the shah, no matter what we think of how they do so, they have kept the government THEY wanted, because of the simple fact that enough of them got pissed off at the old one to forcibly give it the old heave-ho.

The iraqis didn't do that - they were not convinced that saddam needed to go, and would have rather handled it themselves if they did feel it had to be done.. they didn't care for him, some of them in fact passionately hated him, but they respected him as a strong leader, and again, he had an 'outside threat' (us) to unify his people against, which we stupidly provided.

Had we left him to his own devices after his disastrous foray into kuwait, his head would have likely been on a stake outside the palace courtesy of his own citizens, and we'd be dealing with whomever they saw fit to replace him.

You cannot force "freedom" down peoples throats, if they want it badly enough, they will TAKE it - and the brand of "freedom" we're pushing at em right now is something that turns my stomach, and will likely offend more of them, resulting in more headaches.

I swear, every time we meddle over there we just make things worse....
Can I borrow the CLUE by four ? I need to talk to some of our foreign policy folks.... :cuss:
It's like a monkey hand trap, with a monkey too stupid to let go of the pretty rock so he can pull his hand out of the jar :banghead:

-K

dolanp
July 20, 2005, 10:38 AM
Well it's not really surprising. Our invasion was not meant to help them it was meant to help us control the region.

XavierBreath
July 20, 2005, 10:54 AM
There is a fundamental difference between our Country and the democracy that is evolving in Iraq.

In the U.S. men who desired to be free took up arms and defeated an army of a king. They wanted to insure they could repeat this if necessary. They knew that arms was the only means to defeat tyranny.

In Iraq, another country sent troops to liberate the people. The people were sheep who obeyed or were led to slaughter. They have no conception of what it means to free themselves, and thus will never be free regardless of any constitution.

I'm not surprised in the least. Free men appreciate guns and the freedom they preserve. Sheep have no idea how to become a sheepdog.

peeniewallie
July 20, 2005, 11:17 AM
Hmm. You mentioned the word "democracy". Just for the record, our government is (thankfully) not a democracy, regardless of what the talking heads on TV would have us believe. We are a Constitutional Republic, and not by accident. Our founding fathers had the foresight to guard against the idiocy of "majority rules". Otherwise, all the idiots would say "why do we need guns?" and it would be over.

middy
July 20, 2005, 11:38 AM
Good post peeniewallie.

I'd have my druthers comparing the EU constitution to... hrmm. let's use a rotten 1982 Oldsmobile 88 diesel with no floorboards.
The only problem with that analogy is that Olds 88s actually work (and do so for quite some time).

How hard is it for someone to run off a copy of our constitution and change a few names? The fact that it's never been done makes me take masterpiecearms.com a little more seriously (a little).

Taurus 66
July 20, 2005, 12:07 PM
I'm going to rewrite the Bill of No Rights so that we can be more like Iraq.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press; and the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

Amendment II:

A well regulated militia will not be tolerated, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed upon in a heartbeat.

Amendment III:

All soldiers shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, and forgetabout consent of the owner, just move right in, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV:

It's not the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and no warrants shall be needed, the police can just bust right in, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and all their goodies to be seized.

Lone_Gunman
July 20, 2005, 12:08 PM
Well it's not really surprising. Our invasion was not meant to help them it was meant to help us control the region.

Empires can't be built without invasions. That said, I think Bush really thought he was going to help the Iraqis become free.

However, unless the Iraqi's are guaranteed the right to bear arms, so they can protect themselves from tyrants in the future, I don't see what good we will have done them in the long run by deposing Saddam.

TheGoodLife
July 20, 2005, 12:11 PM
All of this talk about a 'constitution' in Iraq is a pathetic joke.

There are some tragic and twisted consequences of the war unfolding in Iraq, not the least of which is a recent agreement between Iraq's Shi'ite regime and Iran's Shi'ite regime.

I guess our brilliant foreign policy strategists in Washington didn't plan for this one.

Yes, that is what we are helping to establish in Iraq, a Shi'ite regime that is aligning itself with Iran, a regime that Bush considers part of the 'axis of evil'.

We, the USA, are training Iraqi forces and providing security so that the country can align itself with Iran? What kind of foreign policy is that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101344.html

Iraqi Official Says Iran Will Not Train Troops
Defense Minister Contradicts His Tehran Counterpart

By Andy Mosher
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Page A16

BAGHDAD, July 11 -- Iraq's defense minister said Monday that a military agreement reached with Iran last week does not include any provision for the Iranian armed forces to help train Iraqi troops, contradicting reported assertions by his Iranian counterpart.

Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaimi said during a news conference here that the five-point memorandum of understanding that he and Iran's defense minister, Adm. Ali Shamkhani, signed Thursday in Tehran contained "no agreement" on military training.

Asked whether Shamkhani had misrepresented the content of the accord, Dulaimi said only that "he has the right to mention what he wants. We, as Iraqis, are not responsible for that."

The training of Iraq's armed forces, which are being built from scratch after American occupation officials ordered the country's military disbanded in May 2003, has been one of the primary tasks undertaken by U.S. forces here.

With insurgents continuing to carry out car bombings, ambushes, mortar attacks, kidnappings and other violence in much of central and northern Iraq, U.S. officials have identified the Iraqi army's capacity for establishing security as a key indicator of when American troops might begin to withdraw from the country.

. . . .

While asserting that training of troops was not covered under the agreement, Dulaimi said it did call for Iran to give $1 billion in reconstruction aid to the Iraqi government, some of which would go to the Defense Ministry. But the Iraqi army was satisfied with the training provided by the U.S. military, he said, and Iraq was dependent on the protection provided by American troops.
. . .
Special correspondent Salih Saif Aldin contributed to this report.

And not only that, apparently the new Shi'ite government hasn't learned any lessons from its past under Saddam Hussein.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html

Revealed: grim world of new Iraqi torture camps

Secret torture chambers, the brutal interrogation of prisoners, murders by paramilitaries with links to powerful ministries... Foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont in Baghdad uncovers a grim trail of abuse carried out by forces loyal to the new Iraqi government

Sunday July 3, 2005
The Observer

dolanp
July 20, 2005, 12:14 PM
As soon as we leave they will probably be crushed again.

1 old 0311
July 20, 2005, 01:34 PM
They sure ain't going to run out of guns. Oliver North said "Iraq is the worlds largest ammo dump and armory"

Kevin

brian roberts
July 20, 2005, 05:46 PM
Hmmmmm.....Ollie North.....the guy who gave us the FEMA mandate for the "....redistribution of foodstuffs, shelter & clothing in an "emergency...." just like the canadians who seized the generator of some people who were using theirs during a blizzard-induced blackout. But, everyone regards ol' Ollie as a hero, yeah, the "hero" of Mena.
as for Iraq, aren't you guys coming to the conclusion YET that our socialistic "DEMOCRACY" (not a republic anymore, not since 1861) & the favorite word of Lenin & Trotsky, is the anathema of FREEdom. we go all around the world, conquering anything in the name of corporate greed, & the IMF, then wonder why nobody likes us????('...'cuz we're only tryin' to hep' out....") :barf: NEW BOOK OUT: Dying To Win, by Robert Pape, looks like it may be interesting...... :cool:

Arc-Lite
July 20, 2005, 06:12 PM
Iraq can not be compared to the USA....in ANY way shape of form.... as for their Constitution...its their paper, and their flea nest country. If the total population lacks the focus and the grit to fight for THEIR future.... then why should we ? We did what we set out to do, and that was to get rid...of "gopher man".. their future is their choice alone. We alone made a LARGE investment into their future....now its time for them to stand up to the plate.... And how ever it goes....we will be dealing with this again. same dance different song.

GEM
July 20, 2005, 06:14 PM
What a farce! GWB really pays attention to jack squat and cares nothing about the 2nd Amend. If he spent five seconds on the details and cared about the 2nd he would be up in arms, so to speak.

Here's another delight from Iraqi democracy:

Iraqi Constitution May Curb Women's Rights

By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq's new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women's rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.

The document's writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.

The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.

The Americans and secular Iraqis banished such explicit references to religious law from the interim constitution adopted early last year.

The draft chapter, circulated discreetly in recent days, has ignited outrage among women's groups, which held a protest on Tuesday morning in downtown Baghdad at the square where a statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by American marines in April 2003.

One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.

Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence.

Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge.

If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans' insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just "a source" of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as "a main source" of legislation.

By rough count, nearly 200 women and men showed up in the fiery heat to hand out fliers and wave white banners in a throng of traffic. "We want to be equal to everybody - we want human rights for everybody," read one slogan. The demonstration came hours before two Sunni Arabs involved in writing the constitution were fatally shot near a Baghdad restaurant, threatening to throw the drafting process into turmoil.

"We want a guarantee of women's rights in the new constitution," said Hannah Edwar, an organizer of the protest. "We're going to meet with the constitutional committee and make our thoughts known."

A dozen women, some sheathed in full-length black robes, showed up to denounce Ms. Edwar's protest. They said they were followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fundamentalist Shiite cleric who has led two rebellions against the Americans.

American and Iraqi officials say that several draft chapters of the constitution are floating around Baghdad and that no final language has been agreed on. Changes can still be made before Aug. 15, the deadline for the National Assembly to approve a draft. Protests by women and relatively secular blocs on the constitutional committee, like the Kurds, may force Shiite members to tone down the religious language.

"Some of the points regarding women's rights in this chapter are still to be reviewed," said Mariam Arayess, a religious Shiite on the committee.

Ms. Arayess said she believed that the draft was the most recent working version, and that it had fairly generous provisions for equal rights. She is one of fewer than 10 women on the 71-member drafting committee.

The chapter has 27 articles, most of which have relatively liberal provisions aimed at ensuring various civil rights. The first says that "all Iraqis are equal before the law" and that "equal opportunities are guaranteed for all citizens according to the law." The final article forbids censorship of the press.

References to Islam and Shariah appear in a few places. One clause says Iraqis will enjoy all rights stated in "international treaties and conventions as long as they do not contradict Islam." Such language is accepted by many Iraqis, including moderates, who say Islam is a vital foundation for the country.

But women's groups are incensed by Article 14, which would repeal a relatively liberal personal status law enacted in 1959 after the British-backed monarchy was overthrown by secular military officers. That law remained in effect through the decades of Mr. Hussein's rule.

The law used Shariah to adjudicate personal and family matters, but did it in as secular a manner as possible, pulling together the most liberal interpretations of Koranic law from the main Shiite and Sunni sects and stitching them together into one code.

Critics of the draft proposal say that in addition to restricting women's rights, it could also deepen the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The draft also does not make clear what would happen in cases where the husband is from one sect and the wife from another.

Religious Shiite politicians tried once before, in December 2003, to abolish the 1959 law. As is happening now, women's groups and secular female politicians took to the streets.

Faced with the mini-rebellion, L. Paul Bremer III, then the effective American proconsul of Iraq, rebuffed the move, to the anger and dismay of many religious Shiites.

"We don't want to use separate Sunni or Shiite laws," said Dohar Rouhi, president of the Association of Women Entrepreneurs. "We want a law that can be applied to everyone. We want justice for women."

A Westerner familiar with the writing of the constitution said that when he saw a draft of the civil rights section less than a week ago, it did not contain the sweeping language on personal status law. In that version, he said, most measures - even those citing Shariah - were not as severe as they could have been.

"Compared to what some of the conservative Shiites were pushing, the glass is half full," said the Westerner, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because he did not want to appear to be interfering in a sovereign Iraqi process.

He said there was some cause for alarm, though, pointing to a proposal to phase out a measure in the interim constitution requiring that a quarter of parliamentary seats go to women.

Ms. Arayess, the Shiite drafter, said some of the writers were considering keeping the quota for the next two terms of the parliament before allowing it to lapse. After that, she said, women should be able to stand on their own.

____________

Can anyone really think we have a real handle on this place. I am strongly in favor of fighting our enemies but the ill conceived WOT in Iraq just gets worse. Left to their own choice, the democracy will become an Islamic tyranny as did Iran.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it.

stevelyn
July 20, 2005, 06:28 PM
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The same people who helped draft the Iraqi Consitution are the same ones trying to dismantle ours.

As a previous poster stated, the Iraqi war wasn't about liberatiing anyone. It was designed to make it easier for us to control the region.

I would also add that it was also to short-circuit Saddam's plan of fixing the price of oil on the Euro rather than the Almighty Greenback Dollar.

Standing Wolf
July 20, 2005, 07:16 PM
Land wars in Asia never seem to turn out right.

Pilgrim
July 21, 2005, 02:21 PM
1. Iraqi citizens are responsible for defending the homeland and preserving its unity.
It appears this is an attempt to make all citizens accountable for passively supporting anti-government terrorists. If it turns out they knew their next door neighbor was an anti-government type and did nothing about it, they can be prosecuted.

Pilgrim

Gordon Fink
July 21, 2005, 02:50 PM
Is anyone honestly surprised? Is anyone really that ignorant? Does anyone really believe the war is about Iraqi freedom?

~G. Fink

HankB
July 21, 2005, 03:08 PM
Iraqi citizens are responsible for defending the homeland and preserving its unity.This could be construed as prohibiting dissent and political opposition, as these would not "preserve unity."

Gifted
July 21, 2005, 11:19 PM
I posted a while ago asking if anyone knew how to get in touch with Iraqi politicians. Not having the equivalent of the second amendment in thier constitution is a big concern of mine.

Joey2
July 21, 2005, 11:34 PM
I think that Stevelyn nailed it on the head. Good job Stevelyn.

crewsr
July 22, 2005, 02:56 AM
I could be totally off base here but didn’t the United States do this to most of Europe after WWII? Didn’t we "help" Japan in not having a standing army or 2A Rights? I thought a read somewhere that the model they used in rebuilding Europe was a socialist model and we help with the reconstruction. I could be very wrong here.

How can a people truly be free when you just re-established Govt rule via an unarmed public?
its about trust.

Matt G
July 22, 2005, 10:22 AM
I have to agree that the nation is doomed, unfortunately.

This document contains words to the effect of,
CITIZENS MAY NOT

AND THESE PUKES HAVE THE UNMITIGATED AUDACITY TO CALL THAT A
CONSTITUTION?!
Our Constitution has Article I, Section 9, which is full of "shall not"s, but they apply to Congress.

I certainly could not conceive of calling anything a "Bill of Rights" that said that its nation's citizens were disallowed something.

Justin
July 22, 2005, 10:30 AM
And here I thought we'd just let them have our Bill of Rights. It's not like we were using it anyway.

RevDisk
July 22, 2005, 10:34 AM
I have to agree that the nation is doomed, unfortunately.


Our Constitution has Article I, Section 9, which is full of "shall not"s, but they apply to Congress.

I certainly could not conceive of calling anything a "Bill of Rights" that said that its nation's citizens were disallowed something.

Unfortunately, it was doomed from the start. Handing people freedom is at best unwise. If they aren't willing to fight for it themselves... They do not deserve freedom, nor will they keep it. It is not possible to hand freedom to someone. Freedom must be earned.

It disturbs me that people want to amend the US Constitution with Shall not's. Constitutional amendments banning gay marriages, flag burnings, etc. The last Constitutional amendment to limit the rights of citizens was Prohibition. Oh yea, that worked out REAL well. Thankfully that travesty was gutted and thrown into the wastecan like it deserved.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the govt and protect the citizens. If the purpose of the Constitution is altered to limit the citizenry and protect the govt, even for the "noblest" of reasons, we are well down a dark path.

Number 6
July 22, 2005, 07:21 PM
Handing people freedom is at best unwise. If they aren't willing to fight for it themselves... They do not deserve freedom, nor will they keep it. It is not possible to hand freedom to someone. Freedom must be earned.

I must respectfully disagree RevDisk. I have always found your post very well reasoned and very insightful, but here I disagree to some degree. You are right to that if someone fights for freedom that it will be more probable that a government will succeed. This is not always true however. What about Afghanistan, Germany or Japan? All are cases where the U.S. imposed some form of government. Stating that one has to earn freedom does not sit well with me ethically; there are far too many negative externalities to such a view. There is no doubt from where I sit that the road to democracy for Iraq will be very difficult, but it can be done. The key is to understand that this will take a very long time. If the Bush administration is to be faulted for anything, it should be for overestimating the ease by which democracy would be implemented in Iraq. At this point, I would say that it is still far too early judge whether or not Iraq will become a thriving democracy, or a failed state.

One thing I would caution those who want to opine on the Iraq case is to very careful on how they draw parallels from the American experience with the Iraqi experience. When the first 13 states ratified the constitution it did not contain the Bill of Rights, those came after the initial ratification of the constitution. It took time and a whole lot of political wrangling to get a more substantial listing of rights that what is listed in the constitution. Also, just to get the constitution ratified by all 13 states the other 12 states had to place troops on the border of Road Island, which doesn't exactly scream consensus. Let's not be too romantic about the nature of the founders as well. The Declaration of Independence refers to, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is a variation on Locke's, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The founders were uncomfortable granting in principle property rights to everyone. I am not trying to defame the founders, I think they were an extraordinary group of people, but I also want to be realistic about what the founders actually believed as well.

In the same way that guns do not equal violence, guns do not equal freedom. There is a lot more to establishing freedom than that. I strongly believe that the Iraq constitution should guarantee the right for its citizens to bear arms, but I also realize that governments and constitutions evolve over time, and need time to develop. Remember, our constitution was written at a time where monarchs were on the wane, and the limiting of government, and its reach were on a different level than what we experience. The historical circumstances have changed however. Making a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution would be a mistake. Iraq has a different historical pedigree and a different culture, thus their system of government should reflect those differences, where reasonable. Let's not write off Iraq yet, but instead provide the guidance that is needed for a state in transition. Just my 2 cents.

hifi
July 22, 2005, 07:25 PM
If this surprises anybody, then people are a whole lot dumber than I thought. If you thought it would resemble anything like our own Constitution and Bill of Rights that puts limits on government, I have to wonder if you've been living under a rock.

As evidenced by what our federal government has done to our own Constitution, I have no doubt that Iraq will be a 'socialist utopia' very soon.

And to think that Iraqi's were one of the few people left that still had a right to bear arms. But no longer, thanks to us.

RevDisk
July 22, 2005, 09:14 PM
What about Afghanistan, Germany or Japan?

Afghanistan is now ruled by drug lords and warlords. Many former Taliban members are now ranking officials in the new power structures. Outside the capital city, things are ah, unpleasant. We have circa 10,000 soldiers in the entire country, with the main concentration in the capital city. We replaced one brutal unfriendly regime with another brutal "friendly" regime. The Northern Alliance are scarcely more than mercenaries in our pay. It is unwise to put faith in the loyalty of mercenaries. Unhealthy too.

Germany was split in half, and remained divided for nearly fifty years.

Japan we conquered. The Japanese were an orderly enough society that they were basically willing to treat MacArthur as basically a replacement for the Emperor. I admit, they did manage to create a fairly ordered and fair society under US occupation. Not one I'd like to live in personally. My family members that lived in Japan told me enough stories that I'd never even CONSIDER living there.

Let me give you a few more examples. Colonel Hugo Banzer, Bolivia. Fulgencio Batista, Cuba. Roberto Suazo Cordova, Honduras. Ngo Dihn Diem, Vietnam. Duvalier, Haiti. Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua. Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Dominican Republic. The Shah, Iran. All invasions or covert missions to "liberate" countries, and ended up creating dictatorships. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not.


Stating that one has to earn freedom does not sit well with me ethically; there are far too many negative externalities to such a view.

"Earning" freedom can come in a billion different fashions. If nothing else, exercising them is a form of 'earning' them. Earning freedom does not necessarily have to involve killing. I submit to you that "freedom" is more of a life long journey and struggle moreso than a tangible object or even a concrete liberty.


There is no doubt from where I sit that the road to democracy for Iraq will be very difficult, but it can be done. The key is to understand that this will take a very long time. If the Bush administration is to be faulted for anything, it should be for overestimating the ease by which democracy would be implemented in Iraq. At this point, I would say that it is still far too early judge whether or not Iraq will become a thriving democracy, or a failed state.

No one would be happer to be proven wrong than I. I am merely stating my opinion on what is most likely to happen. I fully acknowledge it is possible that centuries of hatred and tribal feuds can be put aside. It's just not very likely.

The Kurds will never submit to domination by the Shiites or Sunni. They'll play nice as long as possible while they build up their stockpiles and infrastructure. Saddam had a unified country and a (relatively) strong Army. He never conquered Kurdistan, and he never would have in a dozen lifetimes. The Kurds want freedom. They are willing to kill for it, and die for it. I have a few Kurdish rugs hanging on my walls. Gifts from some Kurds who took the time to educate me. I am very much in their debt for the knowledge they shared.

If Saddam was willing to use a significant portion of his military, chemical weapons, etc etc to suppress the Kurds, do you really think the US govt has a chance in repressing them? The US has screwed them over too many times for the Kurds to even consider trusting our word. They're not stupid. It's pointless to start a war against the US, when they can bide their time. They're letting their enemies weaken each other, and take time to grow stronger.

When the Kurds do openly declare war against Iraq and/or Turkey, I pray our govt is intelligent enough to pretend the Kurds don't exist (again) and STAY OUT of it.



In the same way that guns do not equal violence, guns do not equal freedom. There is a lot more to establishing freedom than that. I strongly believe that the Iraq constitution should guarantee the right for its citizens to bear arms, but I also realize that governments and constitutions evolve over time, and need time to develop. Remember, our constitution was written at a time where monarchs were on the wane, and the limiting of government, and its reach were on a different level than what we experience. The historical circumstances have changed however. Making a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution would be a mistake. Iraq has a different historical pedigree and a different culture, thus their system of government should reflect those differences, where reasonable. Let's not write off Iraq yet, but instead provide the guidance that is needed for a state in transition. Just my 2 cents.

Very well put, Number 6.

The Iraqis are not Americans. They are different from us. We've done a poor job of understanding this time to time. It's cost lives, on both sides.

As you stated, it is best to give them time and let them figure out a country of their own choosing. I don't think our govt will let them stray too far to our wishes. The US govt has stated so numerous times. There are good and bad points to such behavior. I favor moreso letting them find their own path, as we found our own. This will sometimes involve biting our tongue even when we believe we know better than they do. We might be right, we might be wrong, but it is not our choice to make.



And to think that Iraqi's were one of the few people left that still had a right to bear arms. But no longer, thanks to us.

Hifi, US soldiers were ordered to forcibly disarm Iraqis, in the middle of an extremely bad crime wave. After much ah, trouble, the US Army agreed to one AK47 per household. Keep that in mind.

Number 6
July 22, 2005, 11:23 PM
RevDisk, in terms of Afghanistan I will defer to your assessment since you have first hand experience that I do not have. My point mentioning Japan and Germany was to show that over time it is possible to have countries that were not democratic become democratic. These are not perfect however, of course neither is the United States. Your counter examples are very well known to me as well, and do show very vividly the troublesome nature that forcibly imposing democracy upon a country can be. The point is not to use either positive or negative examples as predictive of what will happen, but to learn from those examples to learn why some democracies failed and others succeeded. This is actually where my research is now oriented.

"Earning" freedom can come in a billion different fashions. If nothing else, exercising them is a form of 'earning' them. Earning freedom does not necessarily have to involve killing. I submit to you that "freedom" is more of a life long journey and struggle moreso than a tangible object or even a concrete liberty.

I guess this is where I was getting confused, but I am still not sure if I fully understand exactly what you mean. In a way I think I absolutely agree with you RevDisk. If a state can "earn" its freedom, then it can be said to be that of its own, which in turn can make a galvanizing force within the society. I guess the problem I have with the term "earn" is that it suggests that being free is not an inherent right. If one must earn it somehow then it could suggest that those who do not exercise that right do not have a claim that they should be free. This becomes a problem when we start talking about groups of people that are institutionally oppressed and really have no recourse within a society. Take the Tutsi and the Twa in Rwanda prior to 1994, certainly some did take up arms against the Hutu governments, but those the government there set up a system that systematically oppressed the Tutsi and the Twa. In Brazil the indigenous tribes are systematically being exterminated by the government and by others, but how are they supposed to try to become free if the international community will not listen and they cannot muster any form of strength to combat the forces that oppress them? I agree with you, a group that fights for their freedom is the most apt to embrace the qualities that are necessary to retain their freedom, but I get worried when the term earn could mean that freedom is not an inherent right.

The Kurds will never submit to domination by the Shiites or Sunni.

You are right that this is a very real possibility, but again I think this needs to be tempered a little bit. After the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the Tutsi led government was faced with a tremendously difficult time of fostering cooperation between two people groups that were just exterminating each other. Having been to Rwanda, and returning this summer I have witnessed first hand the strides they have made. There are several other examples of vastly divergent people groups that have learned to integrate and live together. The key is figure out why they were able to succeed. This is not to say that these cases have not imploded or resurged at times, but we must glean an understanding on what made these states stable for a period of time. I just do not want everyone to write off Iraq and Afghanistan as losses, when it could be that these are the growing pains of a democracy. Like I said before, I have tremendous respect for your opinion RevDisk, you have repeatedly proved to be have very well reasoned and balanced opinions, which I nothing but the utmost regard for.

Taurus 66
July 23, 2005, 12:01 AM
I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, so here it goes: When it comes to the indepth and uninteresting debates, could those involved please take it to e-mail or PM? I did this with RevDisk before, and it freed up quite a bit of space on a thread. To be honest, it's just "Blah Blah ..." to a good number of us who don't care to read a novel's worth from sun up till sun set.

Thank you for your understanding ;)

GEM
July 23, 2005, 02:19 PM
I found it interesting and very informative. It's like the TV - don't read it, as you can switch the channel. It's nice to read more than the usual "Blow up the Arabs" blither.

Geez.

RevDisk
July 23, 2005, 04:13 PM
RevDisk, in terms of Afghanistan I will defer to your assessment since you have first hand experience that I do not have. My point mentioning Japan and Germany was to show that over time it is possible to have countries that were not democratic become democratic. These are not perfect however, of course neither is the United States. Your counter examples are very well known to me as well, and do show very vividly the troublesome nature that forcibly imposing democracy upon a country can be. The point is not to use either positive or negative examples as predictive of what will happen, but to learn from those examples to learn why some democracies failed and others succeeded. This is actually where my research is now oriented.

In regards to Afghanistan, such information can be obtained by reading books and articles. Or go drinking with folks that just returned. I also spoke to non-soldiers (ie, reporters, NGO's and "other folks") that spent more time in the area focusing on the "big picture" moreso than just a slice of it. Most soldiers have their pre-defined mission and try to stick to it. We call this "staying in your lane", and has its good and bad points. Much like anything else.

The most worrisome aspect is the number of countries the US has "liberated", with zero interest of turning such countries into a democracy. We have a very long history of invading countries and turning them into dictatorships or otherwise unpleasant countries. More often than not, this has biten us on the rear end. Iran being the chief concern these days. Note that the Iranian govt is still in power since it booted the Shah. While we dislike Iran, the people don't seem to be minding it too much otherwise the mullahs would have had their heads on a pike. The country is changing, mainly because of students and other young folk. Encouraging the liberalization of Iran is a good thing. An invasion or attempted coup would be profoundly unwise.

But somehow, I suspect you know this already. ;)




I guess this is where I was getting confused, but I am still not sure if I fully understand exactly what you mean. In a way I think I absolutely agree with you RevDisk. If a state can "earn" its freedom, then it can be said to be that of its own, which in turn can make a galvanizing force within the society. I guess the problem I have with the term "earn" is that it suggests that being free is not an inherent right. If one must earn it somehow then it could suggest that those who do not exercise that right do not have a claim that they should be free.

Different folks can use the same words to mean different things, yes. I rattled off a few ways of "earning" freedom, but I do not claim to know every possible way to earn freedom. But I do know if it is 'freely' given, it has absolutely no value. Hence my original quote. It's deceptively simple, but based on much experience on my part and other's.

I suspect if you do not currently grasp the implications in their fullness, give it time. You will soon enough. It took me nearly 6 years to "get it", and I don't claim to fully understand it myself either.


This becomes a problem when we start talking about groups of people that are institutionally oppressed and really have no recourse within a society. Take the Tutsi and the Twa in Rwanda prior to 1994, certainly some did take up arms against the Hutu governments, but those the government there set up a system that systematically oppressed the Tutsi and the Twa. In Brazil the indigenous tribes are systematically being exterminated by the government and by others, but how are they supposed to try to become free if the international community will not listen and they cannot muster any form of strength to combat the forces that oppress them? I agree with you, a group that fights for their freedom is the most apt to embrace the qualities that are necessary to retain their freedom, but I get worried when the term earn could mean that freedom is not an inherent right.

Freedom is an innate right. But just because every person is born "entitled" to freedom doesn't mean that anyone else recognizes it. Freedom is conceptionally an inherent right, and I acknowledge that. But reality is... messier. One "earns" freedom when others acknowledge it, because humans are social animals.

I am very familiar with certain indigenous tribes having problems with their neighbors. It's not quite as bad as Australian indigenous as in Brazil, but it's still not peachy keen. America still occassionally reverts back to its original treatment of the Native Americans.

More recently, police raided a tobacco store on Native American turf, which is legally seperate from US law. The NA's in question were not taxing the tobacco products, as they didn't have to. By all rights, the Native Americans would have been well within their legal rights to deal with the invaders by ah, all means necessary. They did not, and the police looted the place. While this action doesn't compare to past genocide obviously, it still happens. Even when has a moral and legal right to freedom, doesn't mean it's always respected by others.

It's fine and correct to argue every human is entitled to certain rights. Putting it into practice is another matter entirely.

Bit of a side note, but you might want to consider study of the Basque people of Spain/France. Very interesting group.



You are right that this is a very real possibility, but again I think this needs to be tempered a little bit. After the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the Tutsi led government was faced with a tremendously difficult time of fostering cooperation between two people groups that were just exterminating each other. Having been to Rwanda, and returning this summer I have witnessed first hand the strides they have made. There are several other examples of vastly divergent people groups that have learned to integrate and live together. The key is figure out why they were able to succeed. This is not to say that these cases have not imploded or resurged at times, but we must glean an understanding on what made these states stable for a period of time. I just do not want everyone to write off Iraq and Afghanistan as losses, when it could be that these are the growing pains of a democracy. Like I said before, I have tremendous respect for your opinion RevDisk, you have repeatedly proved to be have very well reasoned and balanced opinions, which I nothing but the utmost regard for.

I think it's a very likely possibility because the Kurds believe in it very strongly. I have two Kurdish rugs in my place as a constant reminder. The style in which they made goes back to the times of Saladin, a Kurdish warrior who laid down much smack on the invading Crusaders and almost always acted with compassion, mercy and intelligence whenever possible.

Indeed, studying successful integration of divergent cultures is a very worthy cause. In these days of international commerce and travel, a very necessary one at that. I do not write off the Iraqis and Afghans as "losses". I simply state that certain US policies towards them are "losses". Some are major policies, some minor. Writing off an entire group of folks is often unwise.

I've read some of your posts as well. Especially on such things as NATO, the Marshall report, et cetera. I'm far from flawless and I have been wrong many times. You put forth a very well stated objection to something I said. I very much respect your position and the manner in which you stated it. Balanced, well researched and insightful. We just happen to disagree (partially) on a few minor conclusions. Nothing wrong with that. I see it as a good thing. Shows a very healthy amount of critical thinking.

RevDisk
July 23, 2005, 04:17 PM
I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, so here it goes: When it comes to the indepth and uninteresting debates, could those involved please take it to e-mail or PM? I did this with RevDisk before, and it freed up quite a bit of space on a thread. To be honest, it's just "Blah Blah ..." to a good number of us who don't care to read a novel's worth from sun up till sun set.

Thank you for your understanding

What's wrong with very relavent discussion, even if it is boring to you? As for being long winded, some things cannot be properly explained or discussed in short sound bites and very much warrant indepth debates.

If it is just "blah blah..." to you, don't read the post. Skip it if you wish.

Off-topic or private matters should indeed be moved to email or PM. The entire point of the board is to openly debate. If someone debates in a fashion you don't care for, move along to someone that does debate in a fashion you like.

Taurus 66
July 23, 2005, 05:08 PM
As for being long winded, some things cannot be properly explained or discussed in short sound bites and very much warrant indepth debates.

and ...

If it is just "blah blah..." to you, don't read the post. Skip it if you wish.

I honestly mean no offense, but you have way too much time on your hands. But if nobody else minds the long winded rhetoric, Eh, go ahead and have your fun ;)

chas_martel
July 24, 2005, 10:28 PM
I'll try and keep my comment short and sweet.

Several of you keep using the term "democracy" as tho'
it is an admirable goal.

What's up with that?

Did someone go and redefine the word and not tell me?

Number 6
July 24, 2005, 11:01 PM
Democracy is far from the most ideal system of government. There are many problems with a democratic form of government, but it is the best system that has been devised so far. The alternatives to democracy are considered by many to be more problematic than democracy. Democracy is far from perfect or ideal, but it is the best option out there currently.

RevDisk
July 25, 2005, 02:28 AM
Several of you keep using the term "democracy" as tho'
it is an admirable goal.

What's up with that?

Did someone go and redefine the word and not tell me?

We currently do not live in a democracy, per se. We live in a Constitutional republic, with some representative democracy tendencies.

"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that honestly can be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has tried. Democracy's worst fault is that its leaders are likely to reflect the faults and virtues of their constituents -- a depressingly low level, but what else can you expect?" - Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land,

voilsb
July 25, 2005, 03:45 AM
This thread reminds me very much of a similar thread about a year ago. It's not quite the same, and not a bad idea to bring it up again, either, but here's the thread I was thinking of: The Iraqi Constitution and Arms (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=69829)

RevDisk
July 25, 2005, 05:24 AM
This thread reminds me very much of a similar thread about a year ago. It's not quite the same, and not a bad idea to bring it up again, either, but here's the thread I was thinking of: The Iraqi Constitution and Arms

Notice the Iraqi civilians still have their AK's with "da switch". :D

And the insurgents still have everything under the sun. :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Iraq Constitution: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!