PDA

View Full Version : ROFL "This is a document of which the Iraqis and the rest of the world can be proud."


Logical
08-29-2005, 01:26 AM
What a self absorbed jackass Bush has become. Oh yeah I am sure this draft constitution is something the whole world needs to be proud of.:rolleyes:

Pants
08-29-2005, 01:39 AM
"I like you. You have balls. I LIKE balls."

Braincase
08-29-2005, 06:37 AM
Anybody wanna bet how soon they start killing Christians because they won't convert?

trndobrd
08-29-2005, 07:49 AM
Wow! The rolling eyes and everything! So how much did mememe! pay for your soul, anyway?

Brock
08-29-2005, 08:00 AM
Wow! The rolling eyes and everything! So how much did mememe! pay for your soul, anyway?


Ha haaa!

RINGLEADER
08-29-2005, 11:23 AM
Are you related to Cindy Sheehan?

Mr. Kotter
08-29-2005, 11:45 AM
What a self absorbed jackass Bush has become.....:

Heh....heh-heh.

Taco John
08-29-2005, 12:07 PM
We took a secular nation and turned them into an Islamic state, and we did it on the American taxpayer dollar. That's just great.

Logical
08-29-2005, 12:29 PM
Let's see about 3/5 of the nations in the world were opposed to us invading Iraq, and now we want to say they are proud of a new draft constitution. Kind of presumptious. Let them say it if they are proud.

morphius
08-29-2005, 12:58 PM
To bad your name wasn't still Logical, because that guy would have figured out that since the countries that are happy about it are all over the globe (aka world) that it it is much easier to use the word "world" then listing out the 2/5's the countries by name...

:D

mlyonsd
08-29-2005, 01:10 PM
We took a secular nation and turned them into an Islamic state, and we did it on the American taxpayer dollar. That's just great.

Maybe when the people vote to ratify the constitution they should have a "Bring back Saddam" option.

I wonder what chance that would have of passing.

Chief Henry
08-29-2005, 01:20 PM
Maybe when the people vote to ratify the constitution they should have a "Bring back Saddam" option.

I wonder what chance that would have of passing.



REP

memyselfI
08-29-2005, 01:34 PM
What a self absorbed jackass Bush has become. Oh yeah I am sure this draft constitution is something the whole world needs to be proud of.:rolleyes:

What, aren't you appreciative of the sacrifices we made to turn a secular nation (and one that had some of the most liberal women's rights in the M.E.) into some backward religious hell hole?

morphius
08-29-2005, 02:01 PM
What, aren't you appreciative of the sacrifices we made to turn a secular nation (and one that had some of the most liberal women's rights in the M.E.) into some backward religious hell hole?
You are right, we should all celebrate and strive for secular totalitarianism...

Uatu
08-29-2005, 02:02 PM
The left side of the board doesn't like the Iraq Constitution. I sure didn't expect that one. What a shocking revelation. It's almost as if you could see it coming no matter how it took shape.

DanT
08-29-2005, 02:11 PM
Here's Bob Murphy's column from today's edition of www.lewrockwell.com. He's a self-described conservative Republican.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy96.html
Some Cynical Thoughts on the Iraqi Constitution

by Bob Murphy


I make no claim to be an expert on the Middle East, so I wonít even try to write a rich essay brimming with dozens of gems of political, historical, and cultural analysis. Instead, I offer a brief summary of my reactions to the unfolding story of Iraqís new constitution.


Did it strike anyone else as slightly comical that the Iraqi equivalent of our own Constitutional Convention had an official deadline, which it missed, and then kept asking for (and getting) extensions? To paraphrase my wife, this sounds more like a term paper for a college class, not the codification of the Rights of Man.


What really infuriates me is the response of the Bush team to the difficulties of the process (and hence the failure to reach consensus according to the original timetable). Bush and his subordinates kept reminding the critics that our own Constitution took years to write and ratify, and so we shouldnít be surprised at the delays in Iraq. Why yes, thatís perfectly true. In fact, Iíll do you one better, Mr. President, and point out that the US Constitution also required the prior centuries of English experience with limited government and the entire colonial history, in which the Americans grew up in a tradition of the (relative) rule of law. So not only should we have expected that the Iraqis might need a few extensions to their deadline, we shouldnít have hoped to transform their country into the 51st state of the Union in under a century.


The other thing that bothers me about Bush & Co.ís response is that it was their own sponsored Iraqi parliament that set the initial timetable, a timetable to which the Administration continually pointed to show how much "progress" was being made in Iraq (despite the pesky insurgency). After all, it wasnít Noam Chomsky who had forced the reluctant Bush team to adopt a hurried deadline for the new constitution. So what happened was this: Bush sends the US military to take over another country, all the while pooh-poohing the critics who objected to the feasibility of nation-building at gunpoint. Then when there are major obstacles to the construction of the new Iraqi polity, Bush et al. respond as if they had been voicing such concerns all along, and that it is their critics who are unreasonably demanding a quick transformation of Iraqi society. No Mr. President, when the critics complain about the failure to meet original timetables, most of them are simply pointing out that, as usual, you and your subordinates are not living up to your own stated positions to the American people.


Hereís another huge puzzle: Bush & Co. keep telling us that (whatever reasons the terrorists themselves might give) the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. These terrorists hate our secular, liberal society. They canít stand that our democratic institutions allow our sovereign citizens to enact measures contrary to Islam, or that our women enjoy equal rights before the law. Okay, letís just assume that all thatís true, and thatís why nineteen men would leave their families, cross an ocean, and spend years preparing to kill themselves Ė all because they hate federalism and immodest women. Even so, wouldnít foisting a free, secular government on Iraq thus cause the terrorists to hate us even more? And yet, Bush keeps telling us that the Iraqi constitution is an important step in reducing the insurgency! (Itís a good thing we have a government to explain to us how these strange foreigners think.)


Every commentator has said that the average Iraqi cares nothing for the historic political events, because heís too concerned with the lack of electricity, clean water, and security. Is it too cynical to wonder whether part of the reason for this lack is precisely to keep the resistance in disarray? After all, itís hard to plot against an occupying force if your lights donít work.


Finally, despite all the allusions to the US Founding Fathers and the necessity for slow deliberations when drafting a constitution, Bush made a phone call and (we can only suppose) made a friendly suggestion that the Iraqis reach agreement. Does he really think the situation is now fixed, or is it just possible that he made that phone call because of mounting political pressure at home to "achieve something" in Iraq?

As with the nonexistent WMD, so too with the torturous process of Iraqi state building: Either the Bush Administration has been completely ignorant and naÔve in its predictions, or they all knew full well the true situation and just lied about it. Either way, shouldnít supposedly conservative Republicans be a bit uncomfortable? At what point do we stop trusting George Bush and his crew to handle the situation in Iraq?


August 29, 2005

Bob Murphy has a PhD in economics from New York University, and is the author of Minerva. See his personal website at BobMurphy.net.

Area 51
08-29-2005, 02:26 PM
Bob Murphy has a PhD in economics from New York University, and is the author of Minerva. See his personal website at BobMurphy.net.



Just goes to show that you can be edcutated beyone your intelligence.

Donger
08-29-2005, 02:29 PM
What, aren't you appreciative of the sacrifices we made to turn a secular nation (and one that had some of the most liberal women's rights in the M.E.) into some backward religious hell hole?

Except for the gals that Saddam's boys would kidnap off the streets and rape, right?

Amnorix
08-29-2005, 02:33 PM
Just goes to show that you can be edcutated beyone your intelligence.


Say what you will, at least he can spell... :p

Amnorix
08-29-2005, 02:35 PM
Except for the gals that Saddam's boys would kidnap off the streets and rape, right?

So you're willing to guarantee that this won't occur in Iraq 5+ years after we're gone.

Good luck with that. IMHO Iraq isn't a particularly homogenous nation, and it's more likely than not that either we get a splintered country engaged in civil war, or another iron-fisted ruler.

Donger
08-29-2005, 02:38 PM
So you're willing to guarantee that this won't occur in Iraq 5+ years after we're gone.

Good luck with that. IMHO Iraq isn't a particularly homogenous nation, and it's more likely than not that either we get a splintered country engaged in civil war, or another iron-fisted ruler.

No, of course not. I'm just reminding Denise that life in Iraq wasn't exactly as rosey as she's attempting to make it seem.

morphius
08-29-2005, 02:48 PM
Say what you will, at least he can spell... :p
Or at least has a better Editor...

Area 51
08-29-2005, 03:08 PM
Say what you will, at least he can spell... :p

fcuk ouy

Logical
08-29-2005, 03:41 PM
The left side of the board doesn't like the Iraq Constitution. I sure didn't expect that one. What a shocking revelation. It's almost as if you could see it coming no matter how it took shape.

I don't fit the description of left but I did start the thread and what I object to is the blatant stupidty and arrogance Bush displays by stating the whole world should be proud of this constitution. That is is illogical, most of the world had nothing to do with it so would have no reason whaatsoever to be proud ot it. Easlily 3/5 of the nations probably think it is an uneccessary event that only occured because the US did not listen to their advice, and at best don't care about it. All he had to do to limit the stupidity was say.

"This is a document of which the Iraqis and the US can be proud."

morphius
08-29-2005, 03:54 PM
I don't fit the description of left but I did start the thread and what I object to is the blatant stupidty and arrogance Bush displays by stating the whole world should be proud of this constitution. That is is illogical, most of the world had nothing to do with it so would have no reason whaatsoever to be proud ot it. Easlily 3/5 of the nations probably think it is an uneccessary event that only occured because the US did not listen to their advice, and at best don't care about it. All he had to do to limit the stupidity was say.

"This is a document of which the Iraqis and the US can be proud."
So your saying that it would have made more sense to list off the roughly 75 other countries that did agree with the US instead of saying "the world"? It doesn't make a lick of sense. And just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't care, cause you can bet your ass that France, Germany, and China care what happens with a place with so much oil...

Uatu
08-29-2005, 03:59 PM
I don't fit the description of left but I did start the thread and what I object to is the blatant stupidty and arrogance Bush displays by stating the whole world should be proud of this constitution. That is is illogical, most of the world had nothing to do with it so would have no reason whaatsoever to be proud ot it. Easlily 3/5 of the nations probably think it is an uneccessary event that only occured because the US did not listen to their advice, and at best don't care about it. All he had to do to limit the stupidity was say.

"This is a document of which the Iraqis and the US can be proud."

So you don't think that the formation of a representative government in place of a brutal dictatorship is something the world can be proud of, whether it participated or not?

At any rate, the coalition consisted of more than 40 nations if I remember correctly. How many nations were on the Atlantic charter in WW2? 20?

Taco John
08-29-2005, 04:01 PM
Maybe when the people vote to ratify the constitution they should have a "Bring back Saddam" option.

I wonder what chance that would have of passing.


Probably pretty good.

How about we hop into a time machine and sell the war to the American people that they'll be paying for converting a secular dictatorship into an Islamic Republic.

Taco John
08-29-2005, 04:04 PM
The left side of the board doesn't like the Iraq Constitution. I sure didn't expect that one. What a shocking revelation. It's almost as if you could see it coming no matter how it took shape.



You are kidding yourself if you think true American conservatives like this constitution. The only people who like this constitution are Bush Whackers. (*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* )

Logical
08-29-2005, 04:06 PM
So your saying that it would have made more sense to list off the roughly 75 other countries that did agree with the US instead of saying "the world"? It doesn't make a lick of sense. And just because they didn't agree with us doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't care, cause you can bet your ass that France, Germany, and China care what happens with a place with so much oil...I imagine the only thing they care about is that the US ends up looking bad and they can get their share of that oil. Whether it is from a Democracy or a Dictator they don't give a crap.

morphius
08-29-2005, 04:17 PM
I imagine the only thing they care about is that the US ends up looking bad and they can get their share of that oil. Whether it is from a Democracy or a Dictator they don't give a crap.
Ahh, but it is one step closer to the US getting out of their way, so they do care...

Logical
08-29-2005, 04:19 PM
So you don't think that the formation of a representative government in place of a brutal dictatorship is something the world can be proud of, whether it participated or not?

At any rate, the coalition consisted of more than 40 nations if I remember correctly. How many nations were on the Atlantic charter in WW2? 20?First you have to believe that a representative government will not only form but survive. I don't believe that for a second. This is all a fabrication to justify Bush's failed occupation planning.

Logical
08-29-2005, 04:20 PM
Ahh, but it is one step closer to the US getting out of their way, so they do care...Care and "proud of" are distinctly different subjects.

mlyonsd
08-29-2005, 07:32 PM
Probably pretty good.



Now you're talking out of yer ass.

To your other point, if the American people were given their choice of Saddam with WMD and a democratic Islamic state like Turkey I know I'd win the bet.

Duck Dog
08-29-2005, 09:16 PM
I imagine the only thing they care about is that the US ends up looking bad and they can get their share of that oil. Whether it is from a Democracy or a Dictator they don't give a crap.

I think you are right. France and Russia have proved they will appease brutal dictators and terrorists if it means they can make a buck and defy America's policies at the same time. It's win win for them.

Duck Dog
08-29-2005, 09:25 PM
Now you're talking out of yer ass.

To your other point, if the American people were given their choice of Saddam with WMD and a democratic Islamic state like Turkey I know I'd win the bet.

Turkey is much different than the nutjobs in Iraq. They are very european in that while they parctice Islam, they do fight terrorism and have been for decades. Also in the way they live. Booze, disco's, brothels. Iraq is a long way from being a Turkey like Islamic state.

Don't get me wrong, I wish they'd get there but in Turkey's case the people were willing to fight for that freedom. Not true in Iraq's case.

Taco John
08-29-2005, 09:55 PM
Now you're talking out of yer ass.

To your other point, if the American people were given their choice of Saddam with WMD and a democratic Islamic state like Turkey I know I'd win the bet.


Except that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They just had to say that to dupe us all into supporting the war.

Ari Chi3fs
08-29-2005, 10:01 PM
Just goes to show that you can be edcutated beyone your intelligence.


Irony at work... love it.

Ugly Duck
08-29-2005, 10:28 PM
So you don't think that the formation of a representative government in place of a brutal dictatorship is something the world can be proud of...?That sounds like a great campaign quip, but maybe it ain't so simple. Sure, the government is representative, but wuts getting people's dander up is who its representin'. The big Shia majority considers itself followers of the Islamic Revolution movement that held our boyz hostage in Iran. They have longed for an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy, and now were handing it to them on a silver platter. Take a look at some sneaky little lines in the constitution:

"the government may not enact a law 'that contradicts those fixed principles of Islam that are the subject of consensus." *

Dig it now.... the Shia are the consensus, and they are the ones pushing for Sharia Law. The kinda law that Al Queda is calling for. Soon as we pull our troops, they announce that Sharia Law is the consensus, and they have a constitutional duty to uphold it. Just like Bin Laden wanted all along.

We supported Sodamn Insane in the Iran/Iraq war because an Iranian victory would have the Islamic Revolution staring down on the world's oil supply. Now we are sacrificing the blood of our own boyz to put the very same Islamic Revolution right at the doorstep to the mideast oil fields. We're not only handing it over to them, we're paying dearly to do it.

*Iraqi constitution quote from the Council on Foreign Relations website -

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8044

Logical
08-29-2005, 11:20 PM
That sounds like a great campaign quip, but maybe it ain't so simple. Sure, the government is representative, but wuts getting people's dander up is who its representin'. The big Shia majority considers itself followers of the Islamic Revolution movement that held our boyz hostage in Iran. They have longed for an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy, and now were handing it to them on a silver platter. Take a look at some sneaky little lines in the constitution:

"the government may not enact a law 'that contradicts those fixed principles of Islam that are the subject of consensus." *

Dig it now.... the Shia are the consensus, and they are the ones pushing for Sharia Law. The kinda law that Al Queda is calling for. Soon as we pull our troops, they announce that Sharia Law is the consensus, and they have a constitutional duty to uphold it. Just like Bin Laden wanted all along.

We supported Sodamn Insane in the Iran/Iraq war because an Iranian victory would have the Islamic Revolution staring down on the world's oil supply. Now we are sacrificing the blood of our own boyz to put the very same Islamic Revolution right at the doorstep to the mideast oil fields. We're not only handing it over to them, we're paying dearly to do it.

*Iraqi constitution quote from the Council on Foreign Relations website -

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8044
:clap::clap::clap: Exactly right UD

WoodDraw
08-29-2005, 11:31 PM
Things could get interesting if this thing doesn't pass and the process has to start over with parliament being dissolved. The possibility of higher turnout among the groups who really didn't show up for the last election would be a positive, assuming the country can avoid a civil war.

What the Iraqis should have done though is create a basic constitution that would give them a framework to work with but left the controversial religion and federalism questions for a later point once things settled down. I'm not sure the approved constitution will do anything to relieve the current struggles.

Pants
08-30-2005, 12:48 AM
You are kidding yourself if you think true American conservatives like this constitution. The only people who like this constitution are Bush Whackers. (*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* )

pweeened.

Earthling
08-30-2005, 12:54 AM
Metrolike...Great image. I'm still laughing...

Pants
08-30-2005, 12:57 AM
Metrolike...Great image. I'm still laughing...

Heh, thanks... cracks me up every time I see it.