quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you just made that up. you're not James Baker. anyhow, you're conveniently missing one "potential scenario". one that is common theme throughout most ME that have various ethnic groups governed under one autonomous government.

Actually, no not made up. As I've said, in these so-called Iraqi elections, Kurds vote for Kurds, Sunnis for Sunnis, and Shiites for Shiites. Future elections are bound to result in the election of a radical Shiite religious party. This Iraqi government can not stand on its own without American occupation forces. It could certainly fall in a coup or popular Islamic revolution. And Iraq is only Iraq by convention. The British created Iraq and just fused three conflicting people into one country. It is certainly feasible that the British Mesopotamia could fragment. I don't have to be James Baker to do some of my own critical thinking. You should try it sometime...You know, empathy, seeing from others perception..

And this "potential scenario" with which you speak of...various ethnic groups governed under one autonomous government...yea...none have the sectarian demography of Iraq. Iran is overwhelmingly Persian Shiite. Saudi Arabia is overwhelmingly Sunni Arab. The list goes on. Iraq has huge demography Sunni/Shiite Arabs, and Kurds, each clustered in its own enclave, especially after the occupation unleashed sectarian tensions. To believe Iraq is going to come together for the good of the nation "Iraq" is completely fallacious. Loyalty in Iraq is to one's sect/tribe, not the central government in Baghdad.

And to end this post, this war of aggression was never initiated as a fight for our freedom, or even Iraqi's freedoms. This war was initiated for the very same reason all wars are started for...plunder...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't have to be James Baker to do some of my own critical thinking.

but you would have to be in order to be right in your thinking.

your entire theory is predicated on the assumption that these two ethnic groups are at the edge of a fitna or civil war. THEY"RE NOT!!!!!!!!!!! the only people that want and encourage another civil war is Al Queera and people that hate George Bush. it's stupid and ignores centuries of history

quote:

And this "potential scenario" with which you speak of...various ethnic groups governed under one autonomous government...yea...none have the sectarian demography of Iraq.

WRONG. >LINK<

Islam is a big tent. unlike you, they want to keep it that way and not make overly simplistic comparisons to segment society and further the petty cause of desperately wanting to prove George Bush wrong.

Last edited by Q5echo on Sep-09-2008 at 10:54

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i think it's a horrible idea and so do Iraqis. >LINK< a successfull Iraq is a united Iraq. they advocate that idea throughout their Constitution.

Thats the problem Q.From the way things are going right now there is no sign of this so called "united Iraq". I know deep inside you do see the facts.
One of those facts is that Iraq is now divided and it is just a matter of time before it becomes 3 state nation or should I say 2 seperate countries?


As soon as the US leaves the country the leaders of those 3 states will destroy this so called democratic government implemented by your government and will create their own states.Will you invade them once again?keep in mind this is what they really wanted from the begining and in the Saddam days this wasnt possible.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Thats the problem Q.From the way things are going right now there is no sign of this so called "united Iraq". I know deep inside you do see the facts. One of those facts is that Iraq is now divided and it is just a matter of time before it becomes 3 state nation or should I say 2 seperate countries? As soon as the US leaves the country the leaders of those 3 states will destroy this so called democratic government implemented by your government and will create their own states.Will you invade them once again?keep in mind this is what they really wanted from the begining and in the Saddam days this wasnt possible.

what you're suggesting, not unlike Krypton, is that they would violently reject their own Constitution. a Constitution THEY adopted as one voice, upheld by the leaders THEY elected. those are the "facts i see".

are there odds of that happening anytime in the future? absolutely. but to accept those odds you must also accept the much greater odds of that not happening. you can't have it just one way.

you have to separate what you want from what Iraqis have demonstrated time and time again they want. so far youre not doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo . you can't have it just one way.

But thats how you're having it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo but you would have to be in order to be right in your thinking. your entire theory is predicated on the assumption that these two ethnic groups are at the edge of a fitna or civil war. THEY"RE NOT!!!!!!!!!!! the only people that want and encourage another civil war is Al Queera and people that hate George Bush. it's stupid and ignores centuries of history

I never said Sunnis and Shiites were on the edge of any civil war. If I did, please let me know. It's a straw-man argument if you ask me.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what you're suggesting, not unlike Krypton, is that they would violently reject their own Constitution. a Constitution THEY adopted as one voice, upheld by the leaders THEY elected. those are the "facts i see".

This constitution with which you put so much of your faith in is hardly a sign of progress. Democracy? Not in this constitution. Islamic law holds precedent, and I'm sure you know Islamic law is hardly democratic. So let me proceed to totally rip into your liberal democratic constitutional Iraq argument, k?

Article 2 states...

quote:

Islam is the official religion of state and a fundamental source for legislation. (a) No law may contravene the essential verities of Islamic law. (b) No law may contravene the principles of democracy. (c) No law may contravene the rights and basic liberties enumerated in this constitution.

Hmmm...Islam - Democracy...Islam - Democracy...Wow, what a stinging contridiction...Islam, a fundamental source.

Article 2 also states...

quote:

This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.

Ok, that is mighty fine and dandy. Butttt...Article 39 states...

quote:

Iraqis are free in their commitment to their personal status according to their religions, sects, beliefs, or choices. This shall be regulated by law."

Hmmm. Religion regulated by the law...So is freedom of religion guareenteed or is it dependent on the prevailing legislature? The vagueness intrigues me.

Article 114 states...

quote:

The Council of Representatives shall enact, in a period not to exceed six months from the date of its first session, a law that defines the executive procedures to form regions, by a simple majority.

What is the result? The Kurds are allowed to form a single supra-region in the oil-rich north, the Shiites to form theirs in the oil-rich south, while the Sunnis are left in the oil-dry center.

Article 110 also states...

quote:

The central government administers oil and gas extracted from current wells, along with governments of the producing regions and provinces, on the condition that revenues are distributed in a way that suits population distribution around the country.

So FUTURE wells are apparently exempted from equitable distribution of proceeds...interesting huh?

Meanwhile, the constitution says nothing about how the country is to be governed. Article 66 states that presidential candidates should be at least 40 years old, Iraqi by birth, the offspring of two Iraqi parents, and that they should "have a good reputation and political experience and be known as honest and faithful to the nation." Article 75 lays out similar prescriptions for the prime minister. However, no set of duties, powers, and responsibilities are enumerated for either official. Nor does the document lay out the powers of parliament, the precise division of powers between the central and regional governments, or the existence of a branch that interprets the law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your much beloved Iraqi constitution solves nothing for Iraq. The government is still paralyzed by political infighting. Islamic law is the source of Iraqi law. The vagueness is blatantly obvious. This is no functioning constitution...

The surge failed, the invasion failed, and authoritarians such as yourself are desperately looking for a way out of your failures..Really so sad when American soldiers die for what? A failed state? All you care about is saving face.. Nevermind the millions of people whose lives have been ruined because of your freedom crusade.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Sep-10-2008 at 00:45

It's that time again people. It's time to be reminded of just how peaceful, liberal, and safe Iraq is after 5 years. Over 100 people dead from violence this week. I'de love for Q to tell me how Chicago and Detroit compare even on the lightest level to suicide bombings, truck bombings, kidnappings, etc which are occuring even still, AFTER THE SURGE, every week. People, if your corporate news media is not mentioning any of this, start figuring out why.

quote:

Thursday 11 September: 25 dead Baghdad: truck bomb kills 1, Dora; roadside bomb kills 3 Housing Ministry employees; 1 body found. Diyala Khalis: gunmen kill sheikh and his infant son in their home. Sadiya: gunmen kill 5 family members. Ghalibiya: 4 bodies found in mass grave. Ninewa Mosul: car bomb kills 2; gunmen kill 3 family members (father, mother, child)in their home; 2 bodies found. Basra Basra: British forces kill man in hotel during raid. Babil Haswa: woman's body is found in her home. Wednesday 10 September: 10 dead Baghdad: 2 bodies. Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill 1; 4 bodies. Karbala Karbala: 2 killed in bomb explosions. Diyala Khalis: 1 killed during clashes. Tuesday 9 September: 11 dead Baghdad: roadside bomb kills 1, Baladiyat; 2 bodies found. Salahuddin Isaaqi: roadside bomb kills policeman. Babil Mussayab: gunmen kill 1. Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill aid agency official, Ahmed al-Djemeili; gunmen kill 2 policemen; policeman's body is found. Wassit Suwayra: gunmen kill 1. Kut: gunmen kill 1. Monday 8 September: 13 dead Baghdad: minister's guards open fire in centre of city, kill a woman; roadside bomb kills 1, Karrada; roadside bomb kill 1, Palestine street; 1 body found. Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill policeman; car bomb kills policeman; policewoman's body is found. Diyala Baquba: a US patrol opens fire and kills Dr Abdul Salam al-Shimari, Head of Internal Disease Dept at Baquba General Hospital, in his car on his way to work. Salahuddin Baiji: suicide car bomber kills 2. Daquq: roadside bomb kills 1. Wassit Khalidiya: gunmen kill 1. Tameem Kirkuk: roadside bomb kills 1. Sunday 7 September: 18 dead Baghdad: 3 bodies found. Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill policeman; bomb kills policeman; bomb kills 3 (2 children) as militants try to plant it in car. Wassit Kut: gunmen kill man waiting for taxi. Diyala Baquba: gunmen kill husband and wife. Anbar Falluja: 3 bodies found (of Sahwa members abducted the previous night). Babil Mussayab: body found in river. Hilla: body found in river. Salahuddin Tikrit: roadside bomb kills 2 policemen. Saturday 6 September: 29 dead Baghdad: car bomb kills Sahwa member, Saidiya; 2 bodies found. Ninewa Tal Afar: suicide bomber blows up car, kills 6. Mosul: policeman dies when bomb stuck on his car explodes. Diyala Bani Zaid: roadside bomb kills 2. Baquba: roadside bomb kills 1. South of Baquba: roadside bomb kills 3 family members. Babil Iskandariya: gunmen kill 1. Mahnawiya: 1 body found. Anbar Falluja: gunmen kill 2 policeman at checkpoint. Saqlawiya: 9 bodies found. Friday 5 September: 15 dead Baghdad: gunmen kill advisor to Min. of Defence, al-Shaab; roadside bomb targeting Chalabi's convoy kills 6, Mansour; 2 bodies. Wassit Kut: policeman dies from injuries he sustained last Sunday in an attack that killed his wife. Ninewa Mosul: 3 bodies. Babil Iskandariya: 1 killed in drive-by shooting. Mussayab: 1 body found.

___________________

Head of Internal Disease Dept at Baquba General Hospital the best kill this week.

___________________

Iraq's Lost Generation

___________________

Obama playing games with U.S. troops for his own political gain? Sounds like he's been advocating troops to stay in Iraq till 2012, while pretending like he wants troops out now to satisfy his lunitic fringe:

quote:

Amir Taheri accuses Barack Obama of interfering in the attempt to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq while making his trip to Baghdad in July. In his New York Post column, Taheri quotes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, on the record, telling him that Obama tried to convince the Iraqis to end the negotiations and instead ask the UN for another one-year extension to the current mandate. That would have left US troops in current position for another year, but more importantly, would have provided the US a diplomatic setback that Obama could have exploited on the campaign trail:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0915200...awal_129150.htm

Hypocrisy isn’t the issue here, it’s the interference of Obama in military and diplomatic affairs. Just on diplomacy, interfering with the United States in its diplomatic efforts is a Logan Act violation. Interfering with war policy treads on even more serious ground, especially since the primary motivation appears to be winning an election without regard to whether it damages our ability to fight the enemy or drives wedges between us and our ally, the elected representative government in Baghdad.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Obama playing games with U.S. troops for his own political gain? Sounds like he's been advocating troops to stay in Iraq till 2012, while pretending like he wants troops out now to satisfy his lunitic fringe: http://www.nypost.com/seven/0915200...awal_129150.htm Hypocrisy isn’t the issue here, it’s the interference of Obama in military and diplomatic affairs. Just on diplomacy, interfering with the United States in its diplomatic efforts is a Logan Act violation. Interfering with war policy treads on even more serious ground, especially since the primary motivation appears to be winning an election without regard to whether it damages our ability to fight the enemy or drives wedges between us and our ally, the elected representative government in Baghdad.

Thats sexist!!!






.
.







..




oh...



//thats racist!!!

I don't know where John McCain gets the nerve to say the US is "winning" in Iraq! Does anyone actually believe that horse shit?

There has been no dramatic fall off in violence, as Krypton has pointed out. Sure, American casualties are down, but that can and likely will change once the militant cells have time to regroup after that glorious military operation called the "Surge". John McCain goes on about it like he actually had something to do with it and was some kind of "D-Day" to the war in Iraq. What utter NONSENSE!

This violence is never going to end as long as the United States is there, plain and simple. Even after they leave, sectarian violence is highly probable. In the end, the Iraqi people are really NO BETTER OFF now than they were under Saddam Hussein and I will stand by that testament.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"