Have our men and women fought and died in Iraq in order to establish another Sharia state in the Islamic world? Where are all the people who were crowing that "we won" not too long ago? Has the Administration's unwillingness to face the facts about the origins and goals of the Islamic jihadists contributed to an atmosphere in which this outcome in Iraq is acceptable? An I told you so update from AP, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Framers of Iraq's constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation - a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation - according to a draft published Tuesday.The draft states no law will be approved that contradicts "the rules of Islam" - a requirement that could affect women's rights and set Iraq on a course far different from the one envisioned when U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.
"Islam is the official religion of the state and is the main source of legislation," reads the draft published in the government newspaper Al-Sabah. "No law that contradicts with its rules can be
promulgated."The document also grants the Shiite religious leadership in Najaf a "guiding role" in recognition of its "high national and religious symbolism."
Al-Sabah noted, however, that there were unspecified differences among the committee on the Najaf portion. Those would presumably include Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites on the 71-member committee.
During the U.S.-run occupation, which ended June 28, 2004, key Shiite and some Sunni politicians sought to have Islam designated the main source of legislation in the interim constitution, which took effect in March 2004.
However, the U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, blocked the move,
agreeing only that Islam would be considered "a source" - but not the only one. At the time, prominent Shiite politicians agreed to forego a public battle with Bremer and pursue the issue during the drafting of the permanent constitution.Some women's groups fear strict interpretation of Islamic principles could erode their rights in such areas as divorce and inheritance. It could also move Iraq toward a more religiously based society than was envisioned by U.S. planners who hoped it would be a beacon of Western-style democracy in a region of one-party rule and theocratic regimes...
This is a harrowing outcome after the shedding of US blood to bring them the chance for a better life -- If this is what they choose after all of our sacrifice, there couldn't be better proof that Islam and democracy are apostatic ideologies of each other...
Well, if iraq turns into an islamic state, we always have somewhere to send the whining muslims that complain about their miserable lives in the west.
Watch out! Here it comes!!!
Yet more confirmation that "democracy" and "freedom" are not gifts that can be bestowed upon a people. It's something they have to be ready to fight for. The Iraqis are nowhere near ready for them yet.
We've lost many U.S. soldiers' lives giving them a gift that is the wrong size and wrong color. "Democracy" is not yet the answer in the M.E., since they will simply vote for an authoritarian theocracy governing under shariah. Can you say "Taliban: The Sequel"?
Our current path is so very wrong.
Let them have their 'Constitution' and let US
leave..having completed our task.
It is a disappointment. Islam is a disease, once afflicted, the hatred it espouses becomes the norm and just. The Christians and any other religious groups in Irag see nothing but misery ahead. Our wonderful soldiers, I will always honor them. But Bush will never admit this outcome is not good.
Islam and the Koran are gods word dictated to mohammed (although they forgot to mention how) since he couldnt read or write.
Our efforts in Iraq are nobel but at the end the iraqi people will have to choose.
If they choose to have another Iran it is their choice and we can then leave...
Most americans dont care if a bunch of muslims want to sit in a cave with a towel wrapped around their heads.
but we do care when the muslims attack our country kill our citezens, blow up school buses and now threaten to wipe out millions with stolen nukes from russia and new ones build via pakistan...
I wish them well and our troops can come home soon. But muslims do not mistake this if you even hickup we will give you a war like you will not believe..
Somewhere between roasted and screwed...
As long as we made sure they are throughly disarmed in the WMD category, a job that needed to be done.
Get their own soldiers and cops trained and get them dying for their own Baathist/jihaist/Sunni lunatic cousins' vendetta violence, and get the faux Constitution (Sharia-lite) printed up, and then phase out the coalition troops.
With the promise to skip the wasteful 'soldiers on the ground' tactics in the future, if any more trouble arises, and go right to cruise missiles, B-1's, and worse, if the neighborhood can't keep their madnesses to themslves.
From then on, if they continue to rage, only long-range and high altitude responsees, and to hell with trying to help them face to face. They're about a grateful as a mafioso punk when the protection money is paid.
From then on, they can look for daisy cutters, not Humm-vee's scattering candy.
Way back when all this started I made the observation that I had scant hope for true democracy in Iraq, simply because I had already learned a great deal about the Islamic mindset - Many of their "great" thinkers in that odious faith have already stated that democracy is incompatible with Islam; this new government may have elected officials, but is will never be even close to a true democracy until someone like Ataturk holds the reins.
Bigsleep..let them train their own security forces.
the problem will be the withdrawal(as in Gaza) ..every flaming shiite-heel is gonna want to take a shot at the 'occupiers'..
This is another reason why Islam should not be allowed in the West. Islam dominates every social, political, economic part of life, and hence is in contradiction to Western civilisation. Islam needs to be stopped in the West, unless we too want our laws to be dominated by Islam.
For those who disagree with me, go live as a Saudi or Iranian as a citizen, not a guest, in these countries, especially more so if you are a woman who disagrees.
Islam isn't compatible with democracy, and probably isn't reformable. We need leaders who understand this, if a hot world war is to be avoided. It may already be too late.
There is nothing new here. As I have posted many times, the . Iraqi Interim Constitution
Which was approved by Jay Garner and the Provisional Governing Council in 2003 said and did the same thing. Below is also the Afghanistan Draft Constitution, not much different than the Talilban constitution or the Iranian Constitution.
The 2003 Administration Approved Interim Constitution from the above link.
Article A makes clear that Shari'a is the law of the land
Article B makes clear that Iraqi Arabs are part of the pan Arab or Arab Nationalist movement (Nasser or the Ba'aths)
Afghanistan an Islamic Nation
Afghanistan Draft Constitution
Compare the above to the Taliban Constitution
Compare the above Constitutions to The Iranian Constitution
Frankly, we knew this going in.
However, the thought was along the lines "they're SOB's, but they are our SOB's."
Delusion can be intoxicating while reality has a way of sobering the drunkard in a short period of time.
Ahem, Saddam was already disarmed of WMD's, and the administration knew it.The WMD stuff was a ruse, and the "data" to support it was fixed, to justify the invasion. The whole world knows that, except for Republicans and Bush bots in denial.
However considering the ties between the well armed Shi'a Mullahcracy of Iran, and the Shi'a Government of Iraq (SCIRI), how much longer will it stay disarmed, and will Iraq become an extension of Iran, or will the historical antipathy of Arab v Persian or Shi'a v Sunni win out?
We don't know do we. One thing I do know is that there is a doctrinal hostility between Wahhabi Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam, because Shi'as are considered Kaffirs (Mushrik or polytheists) by Sunnis especially the Wahhabi's, is that enough to preclude maehfil (unity - by the way the Arab word is the origin of Mafia, just as Protection racket was learned from Jizyah).? We don't know, only time will tell.
My personal opinion is that the Saudis suckered us into invading Iraq, like they suckered us into funding and promoting the mujahideen and Jihadis in Afghanistan and Bosnia. You might want to read
Evan Kohlmann's Al Qaida's Jihad in Europe, the Afghan Bosnia Network and take some time to look around his website at that link.
And the Saudis have been able to run a double game, because they played on the igorance, gulliblity and greed of our various administrations and their corporate sponsers from the military industrial petroleum complex.
And don't forget The Saudis are partners with the Bush family and Cheney's, and family friends as well. In fact Baker Botts law firm (of James Baker III) represents Exxon, the Bush's and the Saudis, in fact he defended the Saudis against claims from the families of victims of 9-11.
The Saudis have conned and used us, and are still welcome in Washington and Crawford, and why not they own 7% of our national debt, 30% of our economy and have over l trillion dollars in our banks.. imagine the depression if they sold off their investments and pulled the money out of our banks.
No wonder Muslim spies and subversives have inflitrated Washington
For those who are still saying "Mission Accomplished!", I wonder what the response will be if/when the new Iraqi government decides to pardon Saddam Hussein and allow him to run as a candidate in their "democracy".
shiites won't pardon saddam..
3X:
This is another reason why Islam should not be allowed in the West. Islam dominates every social, political, economic part of life, and hence is in contradiction to Western civilisation. Islam needs to be stopped in the West, unless we too want our laws to be dominated by Islam.
Nothing less than internment and deportations will do. Let's drive this message home!
Back on topic:
I say get out of Iraq NOW and leave them to the mess they have created for themselves. How can you help people who refuse to be helped and who passionately hate you?
This is what we spent our lives and money on? Great work, Mr. Right Wing Multiculturalists, even the left couldn't do more damage when you add this to his open border Mexico policy
Exactly, Terminator..the longer we hang around now, the more organized the Combined Shmuck Brigades ,who will no doubt harrass our departure, have time to organize.
Terms of Departure:
400 yard free fire zones around convoy exit routes
no candy for kids..do not approach convoys
..you are welcome for yer liberation..if we ever meet again it will be too soon!!
The next question is...if the troops leave, where are they going to go? Next stop...?
BOHICA!
otterfisher-
We have to "stand down" in a way that preserves our projection of power, as sloppy as the entire enterprise was, and is. (Hasn't anybody in the miltary or leadership read Mao's work on Guerilla Warfare or Sun Tzu's "Art of War" or Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Spheres" or Churchill's History of the Second World War?)
Meanwhile, I hope we are training the Iraqis forces in 1960's era procedures, and not giving away our latest methods, which will then just be used against us later, as they are spread to less stable regimes and terrorist cells.
Clearly the Babylonian people are nothing to write home about, in general, having been brainwashed by Islam and cowed by dictators for too long to retain a sense of even the most basic self-preservational instincts, other than at the same level as Saddam practiced: crude reprisals, after wailing over their dead, who weren't given even the simplest defenses. How are foreign ambassadors being so easily 'kidnapped'? Don't they understand what it means to fall into Zarqawi's hands? (Video beheadings.) Why don't they all carry two Uzis, a spare Glock & a few hand grenades, so that they can at least die fighting? Are they that fatalistic and passive? Or stupid?)
The soonest after the mock Consitution is signed, and the fastest we can safely withdraw, the better.
Then set up the no-fly zone, again, and monitor the civil war.
And wait for the first WMD to hit the West.
Then give out-of-control Islam a thousandfold answer right back on their delusional skulls.
No pussyfooting.
So this is the "democracy" and "freedom" that our brave soldiers are dying for. I knew this would happen, just like in Afghanistan.
Another Iran on the horizon.
If we were serious about our "war on terror", we would have dispatched assassins to execute all radical Islamic clerics, including those in the U.S. and the U.K. As long as there are imams, mullahs, and ayatollahs around to keep the fanaticism, delusions of superiority, and myths of martyrdom alive, the jihad factories will spit out holy warriors faster than we can kill them.
It might take a while, but without spiritual inciters and promoters, jihad would die a natural death.
Giaour,
Thanks for the constitution passages. Very interesting comparison.
Looks like the end of the rodeo. The question now is how can we leave without getting even more beat up. Can the New Iraqi Army be trusted to protect our rear while we take away our heavy equipment? Or do we leave the heavy equipment so it can be used against us somewhere else? Have you seen those M-16's being carried by Hezbollah and others? Captured in Viet Nam.
:(
We could sure use those soldiers to stop the wetbacks swarming across our southern border.
If they thought that there would be a western style democracy, then they were idiots.
There CANNOT be a western style democracy in ANY Islamic country, unless that country is first de-Islamified.
Giaour interesting constitutional stuff, in Islam's case, all the same really.
As for the WMD, don't forget that Saddam did use them on the Kurds, so even if your Bush bot theory is true, it makes no difference, Saddam did have, and used, WMD’s in the past on his own people - the Kurds, and the Iranians in the 10 year long war they had.
Lets face it, even if Saddam DID have WMD's, think about the first Gulf War. Saddam fought a bloody long war with Iran. When the US tackled him the first time in the 90's what did he do with his valuable air force? Anyone remember? He flew just about all of them over to his Iranian enemy, just so the Yanks couldn't get/destroy it.
Given the fact that the US said for a number of months in a big loud voice, 'WE ARE COMMING, WE ARE COMMING, WE ARE COMMING!!!!" for around 4 months, well I bet if Saddam did have WMD's they are now all in Syria (probably deployed along the Israeli border in the hands of some Peace Loving Muslim group), or even in their enemies hands, the Iranians.
In their eyes, if you know that you are going to get your butt kicked by the "Great Satan", then give the most valuable of your arsenal to your Muslim enemies, better that they use it on the Great Satan - and that's probably what Saddam did. After all, he had months to do it! Moot point, but highly plausible.
As for getting out, unless the US admits that the war is against Islam, then they should get out immediately.
disengagement rule 4
in the event of ied explosion disabling US vehicle
nearest 4-6 houses/buildings will be destroyed
by Abrahms tank fire to preclude follow on attack.
Bigsleep.. forget further 'training' of security forces..it's over, man.. the game is over..
islam won.. we gotta go!..ON WITH THE CIVIL WAR..
How to exit?
Well a good plan is to have our second best troops lead the drive, the support guys in the middle, and the mean muthas at the end. And as a single unit drive to the port of Haifa in Israel, Im sure the Israelies would allow us to exit out. hmmmm it appears that Syria is in the way... speed bump.
otterfisher-
"Islam won"?
Nah.
The political class in the U.S. is just not yet ready to fight the real war.
It will take the WMD 'smelling salts' to rouse their comatose p.c. asses.
Meanwhile, we need to phase out the coalition forces at our own pace, leaving the deadly message behind that:
we're leaving you to your own devices, now, but if you get too crazy and spread trouble beyond your borders, we will drop large scale ordnance on your cantankerous butts until you settle back to mere internecine slaughter.
And:
"You're welcome."
Susanp:
'If we were serious about our "war on terror", we would have dispatched assassins to execute all radical Islamic clerics, including those in the U.S. and the U.K. As long as there are imams, mullahs, and ayatollahs around to keep the fanaticism, delusions of superiority, and myths of martyrdom alive, the jihad factories will spit out holy warriors faster than we can kill them.'
I love you for that Susanp!
You see: I post stuff like that and I get banned. You get away with it. I would be happy with mere deportations. But, then again, yeah: Hit squads, eliminating clerics...
Where do I sign up?
Have our men and women fought and died in Iraq in order to establish another Sharia state in the Islamic world?
No; they fought and died so Bush could be a sitting war president at the time of the election. The Sharia state is "an extra."
Where are all the people who were crowing that "we won" not too long ago?
Over at lgf.com and freerepublic.com apparently. Lord knows that not many right-wingnuts are at THIS comments page... perchance Bar, Carolyn, Catherine, Gary, et al. are a little embarassed, and who can blame them? The Iraq Fiasco is turing out exactly the way us "liberal, America-bashing, military-hating intellectuals" predicted it would: no WMDs, no justice for the Kurds, no democracy, scores of thousands of dead civilians, billions of dollars handed to Haliburton, thousands of murdered and disfigured GIs, and a full-blown, theocratic hellhole for a nation.
Of course, the more we "write off" Iraq, the more the "we won" crowd can devote time to getting Judge Roberts confirmed so he can swing the vote to outlaw abortion. And then, the Federalist Society-ists can set about abolishing the IRS and putting in a "flat" tax rate of 12%, which will have to be raised to 30% soon thereafter.
So in a way, the monkeys can hoot "WE WON" because they have. And it only cost them 2000 ordinary military lives (and 10,000 hands, eyes, legs, etc.) and TWO-HUNDRED BILLION (taxpayer) dollars. But hey, nation-building is always expensive work. Surely the good Muslim folk of Iraq will appreciate our efforts to give them the Sharia state they have always craved, I mean, just look at how grateful the Saudis are for us giving them independence and handing them trillions of dollars.
And don't forget: while "we" sqander hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, more and more "other-than-Mexicans" are pouring into America through Texas, because we can't afford to patrol the border. But DON'T FRET: "if" there is a terrorist attack, you can always blame the liberals (like you did the last time) because those liberal democracts that control the White House, Senate, House, and the state government of Texas (ahem) "SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE!"
Has the Administration's unwillingness to face the facts about the origins and goals of the Islamic jihadists contributed to an atmosphere in which this outcome in Iraq is acceptable?
The desired outcome was never to have an acceptable outcome in Iraq. The desired outcome was to win the presidency last November. Who cares if Iraq becomes a Muslim hellhole? Who cares if all the women of Iraq become slaves? Who cares if all the Christians, Kurds, Yezidis, etc. of Iraq get "put in their place"? What are ya, soem kinda crybaby, bleedin-heart liberal whacko?
I get absolutely no satisfaction in telling you "I told you so", but the chances of the people of Iraq making Iraq a better place than Saddam did are about the same as the Democrats of California trying to recall Governor Steroid: it ain't gonna happen.
Get used to it. There's a new IRAN in town, and this one is hundreds of miles closer to Israel, and this one is sitting on a trillion barrels of oil.
Just keep telling yourself "Freedom's On The March" and everything will be alright. And when the sh*t hits the fan--and it will--do what you always do: BLAME THE LIBERALS.
KJ
rollinsfan021361@yahoo.com
I'm having terrifying deja vu flashbacks to the late 70's when Jeanne Kirkpatrick chirped that the Afghanis had the right to determine their own government, blah, blah, blah -- and we should all just be grateful that the big, bad Soviets left!!
Can anyone say "Taliban redux" ?
After reading these two posts from Jihad Watch (here and here) on the new Iraqi Shari'a based constitution, I can now make a prediction.
This is it. This is the turning point in the war on terror. The administration had in right when we attacked Iraq. They had it completely wrong when they decided to frame the GWOT as a fight against radical Islam and ignored the historical and cultural differences between Islam and the West that will ultimately define this war for what it truly is - a clash of civilizations. The seed of peace and freedom will never germinate until our actions against the radical elements of Islam reach such a level of brutality that it will be clear in the minds of moderate Muslims everywhere which worldview dominates. Only then will they have the courage to reformulate their societies free from theocratic and radical tendencies. In this, we have failed.
The weakness with the administration's approach to protecting America does not stop here. That nothing substantive has been done about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or Iran and Syria's contribution to the insurgency in Iraq, can all be traced to a weak and myopic belief that it is "all about the radicals". Frightened by our own shadows and overly concerned with appearances, we are dangerously close to allowing these same radicals access to the infrastructure necessary to develop nuclear weapons.
It is this same poor leadership and lack of understanding that drives the administration's failed policy on immigration - a policy best symbolized by a President whose own impotency on the manner was manifest to all when he dared to call concerned citizens "vigilantes" - men and women who took it upon themselves to do a job that he is unwilling or incapable of doing.
Whether or not we will consider the sacrifice of American soldiers in Iraq to have been squandered will depend on the leadership the President shows in the coming months. I for one will not be fooled by the self-congratulatory pat on the back of politicians who know they have failed and are more concerned with legacies and party politics. Iraq will vote, and some will call this act of democracy a success - but if the result is a theocracy then our policies have failed. Dress it up how you want and spin it until the cows come home. A failure is a failure is a failure.
Both parties are to blame - the Democrats because they will always be weakened by their ridiculous yearning for understanding and dialogue with an enemy that scoffs at such things, and the Republicans because they are too frightened to challenge the monolith of political correctness.
More here
Susanp wrote,
"...As long as there are imams, mullahs, and ayatollahs around to keep the fanaticism, delusions of superiority, and myths of martyrdom alive, the jihad factories will spit out holy warriors faster than we can kill them.
It might take a while, but without spiritual inciters and promoters, jihad would die a natural death."
Jihad will not die as long as the Qur'an exits, for Allah commands it (Sura 9:5, 9:29, 8:39 and others).
Texan wrote,
"...wetbacks...."
That's inappropriate.
Amillennialist
If this confirms, it demostrates that the Catholic Church knew that this war didn´t have any positive effect because an islamic state nation for the catholics there will be a hell, they won´t be able to sell alcohol
I hope don´t confirm this. Because US would have wrong.
"It might take a while, but without spiritual inciters and promoters, jihad would die a natural death,"
should have been italicized.