A Constitution Drenched In Blood

So Iraq's draft constitution will be signed most likely tomorrow. Bush can claim his hollow victory for a transfer of power. Woopee.

With the madness that rocked the country Tuesday, a civil war is looming closer than it ever has. Who was truly behind it?

There are certainly differing theories on that. Call me crazy, but going on the "who stands to gain" question and nature of the Shi'ites' faith, I'd have to agree with the assumption that the CPA and "Al Qaeda's" interests and activities seem to be working in tandem. No big surprise. The longer chaos reigns in Iraq, the longer the US military can justify its continued presence and "war on terror." And the anger that fuels only creates more and more angry young men willing to join jihad.

Who was behind it? Here's an excellent article discussing the differing views and tensions.

A constitution drenched in blood
By Pepe Escobar

This is the new Iraq - where the process for a new democratic constitution is greeted by the specter of civil war.
On midnight last Saturday the Iraq Governing Council (IGC) failed to meet a deadline - imposed by American proconsul L Paul Bremer - to reach agreement on a draft constitution. Bremer himself intervened, applying heavy pressure. At 4:30am on Monday, the IGC proclaimed that it had finally agreed on a draft. Then on Tuesday morning the devastating anti-Shi'ite attacks took place in Baghdad and Karbala.
www.atimes.com...

The fact that Iraq has been infiltrated by Islamic extremists bent on dashing the hopes of an Iraq governed by the people has alot to do with the situation. This seems to be ignored by many when looking at the bloody scene that is detrimental to the Iraqi people.

Almost at the same time attack on shiites in Iraq happened, large attacks in Iran and Pakistan occured against shiites in those countries also. Do you think this is an effort by the Bush whitehouse or pentagon to extend troop deployments in Iran and Pakistan also, or am I not understanding your logic correctly

I'm not seeing this as connected events as intel already warned of the militant insurgents. I do not, however, totally toss out your conspiratorial ideas. Please forgive me if I came across in that manner.

I don�t totally agree with ECK's post, I see a different scenario.

But Thomas, Iraq doesn't need to be infiltrated by Islamic extremists for it to make a political difference. There are plenty in the country already. I've said before, but again, what happens when, if ever, Iraq is given totally free elections they vote in an extremist Islamic government? It's entirely possible and I see it as the reason that the U.S is promoting the method of elections that they are, and that they're getting so much opposition to.

What would happen if they did? We would go straight back in? Can you imagine the fallout from that, not least the from the disparages to the idea of democracy.

Okay, let's say they vote in an extremist government that supports terrorism and has the worst of wishes and intentions and the will to carry them out upon our citizenry. What would you expect the U.S. government to do?

Democracy is still better than having saddam in power

Isn�t that the big question Thomas?
That was my question.

hypothetically speaking:

What if they do? Isn't that democracy? Their democratic right to vote in who they want?

If we don't like the result is it still democracy?
should they know that if we don't like the result we will go back in and change it?

Does that mean they have to keep having elections till we like the result?

That's not democracy.
What would that be called...?

It's called a dictatorship. We're not giving Iraqis their autonomy back. We've installed a puppet "government." That's why the Shi'ites are so pissed. They want direct democracy and the CPA/Bush administration ain't havin' it. If they truly were given power back, they'd vote the US right on out of there. Then all that effort would be for nought.

The attacks benefit the Bush administration. It only ensures the US military won't be going anywhere and the administration's grip on the council.

They should get their full untainted autonomy back. Unfortunately the nightmare scenario is that they will move to a fundamentalist state. No one in the west wants that. No one in their right mind would want that. But what choices do we have at this point? Boot on neck or Iran 2?

This whole thing is bad. If more people had understood the history, politics and culture of Iraq, we might not have been so quick to invade like that.

Pardon me, but you call this a "hollow victory" why? Because it took a war with many people dieing? If I remember correctly, the United States fought a large war for basically for it's constitution. Do you call that a hollow victory? No. Is it just because Bush succeded in doing something that you don't like? Personally I don't see any kind of civil war coming up, and the world will be much safer and far more peacful without idiots like Saddam in control of a country with Nuclear capabilities. So honestly, is the constitution really a bad thing if the Iraqis stick to it? I think that this may actually work, and Iraq may become a strong, descent country just as the United States has done after it's war.

J.

[Edited on 3/7/2004 by Milton]

You're right EastCoastKid, it is in fact a phoney democracy that will be set up in Iraq.

Let's just say hypothetically that the Iraqi people with their new democratic powers voted to bring Saddam back. What do you think the US would do? Would they allow that? Not a chance, so how will it be a democracy?

Again, let's say hypothetically that the Iraqis in their wisdom decided to use their democratic powers to declare that in fact...they want an Islamic state!!! Would the US allow this? We already know the answer to that question. So...do the Iraqi people really have a choice? Not really, unless that choice is ok with the US. What's that called again.....???

They haven't got a tyrant in control anymore, they've got the US instead. Same difference really.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Almost at the same time attack on shiites in Iraq happened, large attacks in Iran and Pakistan occured against shiites in those countries also. Do you think this is an effort by the Bush whitehouse or pentagon to extend troop deployments in Iran and Pakistan also, or am I not understanding your logic correctly

It will take a lot more than attacks on Shiites in Iran for the US to "deploy" troops in Iran. Iran is hostile towards the US, and a deployment in this case would mean invasion...
Invasion could be likely in coming months or years if they continue to pursue their nuclear program, but Shiite violence is not going to be the catalyst nor excuse for such an action.
As for Pakistan, the US already has limited troops deployed there in an assisting role to Afghanistan, however they are not allowed to act militarily on Pakistani soil... that of course is changing due to negotiations over the Pak nuclear proliferation fiasco... As of days ago it appears that Pak is now allowing US troops into their country to pursue rebels...

As for the name of this thread, "A Constitution Drenched In Blood", very few constitutions aren't somehow related to blood loss - that in no way takes away from the validity of it.

As for this being the Iraqis merely switching from the tyranny of Saddam to the tyranny of the US and pseudo-democracy being employed in the country I beg to differ... it may not be an absolutely free democratic environment, but few places are including the US, some parties are outlawed or not allowed to participate in Iraq's democratic process, such as the Ba'ath party and radical islamists, but the iraqi's are indeed participating in a democratically elected gov't - therefore by definition democracy is in place - and the limitations for now at least are understandable considering the circumstances.
In future elections I look for a more indigenous form of democracy taking root... it's very possible that Iraq could become a very strong islamic democracy in the region, both economically and militarily, a flagship of the modern arab-islamic world.




[Edited on 7-3-2004 by intelgurl]

if our current BS two party democracy is any indication of where iraq is headed, i really feel bad for them.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact that Iraq has been infiltrated by Islamic extremists bent on dashing the hopes of an Iraq governed by the people has alot to do with the situation. This seems to be ignored by many when looking at the bloody scene that is detrimental to the Iraqi people.

the "Islamic extremists" wouldn't be there if we didn's go over there in the first place. Ask you self this question. How many people will die for imperialist ideals? More that died under the regin of Saddam. Who we put in power in the first place!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Milton
Pardon me, but you call this a "hollow victory" why? Because it took a war with many people dieing? If I remember correctly, the United States fought a large war for basically for it's constitution. Do you call that a hollow victory? No. Is it just because Bush succeded in doing something that you don't like?

You are so disillusioned it's funny. succeeded?!?!?! succeeded?!?!? If he succeeded the Iraqi's would be greeting us with open arms and love us. But wait the war is over right. Wake the # up!!!!!!! It takes more than a year to bring a country back from the ruins of War. Never in history has a country recovered from a military coup and installed a civilian government in less than a year You people really think that this is going to go away overnight. I give it 10 years at the least. I dare you to show me an example of a country that has been invaded and it took less than a year to install a civilian government. It took Nigeria 19 years to have civilian elections after a military coup. My God people don't you see what is happening in front of your eyes. This is a world War. And now we have Haiti in our backyard in turmoil. what's to stop Al-Queda from setting up shop there. The gloves are off people.
Wake Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by enomus
if our current BS two party democracy is any indication of where iraq is headed, i really feel bad for them.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!

Can you say Skull & Bones vs. Skull & Bones? Democracy has become a illusion given to us though the media. It's not real. Until we have a true democracyhere in america how can we intall it in another country?

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by DaTruth]

As I've stated time and time again, Saddam, bin Laden, and numerous other people in numerous other places were necessary choices during the fight for Western freedoms that were under seige during the Cold War. For you to come and hold Hussein up and say "See there, you hateful Westerners?" after we were able to eventually win the "Cold War" is to ignore alot of history and important circumstances. In other words, my answer is "So? Learn about what you are discussing and make relevant points. That is not."
No, if Hussein was still ruling and there was no chance of any sort of Democracy blossoming in the Arab middle east, there would be not militants pouring into the country to fight against it. No, they'd be like Abu Nidal, there to hide after killing Westerners. They didn't have any problems with the gang raping of Hussein disenters' families, nor of the plastic shredders, or anything else done by Hussein and his to insane sons. Apparently, that was a good thing, huh? Apparently, you don't see it a good thing that we took care of a unfortunate result of the Cold War. Apparently, if we do it, one way or another, you are the bad guys. Whatever, DaTruth.

Originally posted by DaTruth
the "Islamic extremists" wouldn't be there if we didn's go over there in the first place. Ask you self this question. How many people will die for imperialist ideals? More that died under the regin of Saddam.

Over a million Muslims were murdered by Saddam's regime.
And why would those extremists not have been in Iraq before? Was it maybe because they would have been killed out of hand? Catch-22.

It's also quite amusing to see some here stating that the extremists are a major problem, when their stance on other issues in international terrorism state that there are no terrorists and we're merely being duped into believing that they are a threat.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As I've stated time and time again, Saddam, bin Laden, and numerous other people in numerous other places were necessary choices during the fight for Western freedoms that were under seige during the Cold War. For you to come and hold Hussein up and say "See there, you hateful Westerners?" after we were able to eventually win the "Cold War" is to ignore alot of history and important circumstances. In other words, my answer is "So? Learn about what you are discussing and make relevant points. That is not."
No, if Hussein was still ruling and there was no chance of any sort of Democracy blossoming in the Arab middle east, there would be not militants pouring into the country to fight against it. No, they'd be like Abu Nidal, there to hide after killing Westerners. They didn't have any problems with the gang raping of Hussein disenters' families, nor of the plastic shredders, or anything else done by Hussein and his to insane sons. Apparently, that was a good thing, huh? Apparently, you don't see it a good thing that we took care of a unfortunate result of the Cold War. Apparently, if we do it, one way or another, you are the bad guys. Whatever, DaTruth.

I can't believe you actually believe that crap!!!!! We knew good and damn well how evil Saddam was when we put him in place. We gave him arms(i.e WMD) to use against Iran. Now were running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to find the weapons we gave him in the first place. The same in Afghanistan. You know what the Cold War was Thomas. A bunch of paranoid white men with weapons.

A perfect example of this paranoia was during the end of the cold war. America performed an exercise to see how the Russians would react to a nuclear launch. So we had a mock launch that we knew the Russians could detect. Much to our surprise the Russians didn't act aggressively but rather defensibly. The pulled all of there forces to there borders to protect themselves. Let me say it again to protect themselves!!!!! We then realized that they were just as scared as we were only now, we knew that they were scared and they didn't. The outcome we remain the superpower and they revert to a third world country.

These "Western freedoms" that you talk about are nothing but an illusion. The only freedoms we protect is the freedom for Satanist to desecrate graves of native Americans and hijack the political institution in this country. An you know what I give them their props. They put in place a man who # the country up so much that now people are willing to accept anyone but him. So what do they do??!?! Give us another puppet. Wake the # up Thomas Crowne and stop living in a dream world.

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by DaTruth]

I see you didn't respond Thomas Crown. Is it because you follow your leaders blindly? I mean come on your on a conspiracy website. What do you expect?!?!??!?!

From DaTruth:

These "Western freedoms" that you talk about are nothing but an illusion. The only freedoms we protect is the freedom for Satanist to desecrate graves of native Americans and hijack the political institution in this country. An you know what I give them their props. They put in place a man who # the country up so much that now people are willing to accept anyone but him. So what do they do??!?! Give us another puppet.

ECK: So true!


From Intelgirl:

As for this being the Iraqis merely switching from the tyranny of Saddam to the tyranny of the US and pseudo-democracy being employed in the country I beg to differ... it may not be an absolutely free democratic environment, but few places are including the US, some parties are outlawed or not allowed to participate in Iraq's democratic process, such as the Ba'ath party and radical islamists, but the iraqi's are indeed participating in a democratically elected gov't - therefore by definition democracy is in place - and the limitations for now at least are understandable considering the circumstances.

ECK: If you call overthrowing the leader of a sovereign nation and installing cherry-picked Iraqis to make up an interim government - friendly to the overthrower - democratic, then I beg to differ. And are you aware of the fact that Iraqi women now have LESS freedoms and are LESS safe by far than they were under Saddam? It's a fact. FROCK that! It just goes to show how the Bush administration merely pays lip service to these important issues. They don't give a rat's A$$ about freedoms for Iraqis. Their one and only concern is ensuring our sustained presence in country - and maintaining control over the oil. Make no mistake about that.


In future elections I look for a more indigenous form of democracy taking root... it's very possible that Iraq could become a very strong islamic democracy

ECK: Say what? ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY? Intelgirl, you've gotta be kidding.. That's an oxymoron. INDIGENOUS DEMOCRACY? That would be called THEOCRACY (fundamentalist Islam.) A pan Islamic state from Iran throughout Shi'ite Iraq. What a nightmare. All I can say is BushCo. has knocked a gargantuan hornets nest off its branch and we probably havn't seen anything yet. For anyone who thinks democracy is just going to bloom like a desert flower in the next handful of years, just like the NeoCons want, needs to go back and study the last 150 years of Mesopotamia. You might get a good idea of how Iraqis actually tick.





[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

For anyone who thinks democracy is just going to bloom like a desert flower in the next handful of years, just like the NeoCons want, needs to go back and study the last 150 years of Mesopotamia. You might get a good idea of how Iraqis actually tick.

This is what I'm talking about. This country was the birth of civilization. The reason for us going over there isn't for war, it is for control. This is very important to the elitist. They feel that this places holds power in history. The British were the first to try and conquer this lad and they failed miserably. We will see in the next couple of years were this country is headed. One year isn't enough to see any type of progress. Mark my words in a year or 2 all of you will be eating your words