Breaking news on BBC.
Fate of Iraqi charter in balance
So even if this thing is passed I’d guess that since it was rejected by “vast margins” in at least two provinces that it’s not going to really add much to the stability of Iraq. In fact it may be used as the launching pad for more opposition both politically and militarily.
Not very good news at all.
Yig. Despite the aid it’d give to Republicans and despite the fact that chunks of the Constitution appear to have been written by Americans to protect business interests, I’ve been hoping that this Constitution would pass: when death is on the line, politics go out the window.
But if two provinces have overwhelmingly rejected it, I’m not sure that hoping for its passage is wise. Would it be better for Iraq for this thing to fail, and for it to have to be reworked? I don’t know.
Daniel
To quote George Carlin: “Lets not start blowing eachother yet.”
Only 9 out of the 13 original US colonies were needed to ratify our constitution. Rhode Island wouldn’t even send a delegate the first time they were invited. Starting a democracy isn’t an easy thing.
Oh, and LHOD, it’s disturbing that you even need to post that.
To quote myself, who the fuck is blowing whom here? Try posting without sexual metaphors, why don’tcha?
And your point with this historical lesson is…?
Why is it disturbing? There was controversy when the war started over the degree to which folks politicized it, and I’ve maintained a consistent position that it shouldn’t be politicized. I posted that disclaimer to prevent folks from claiming that my conflicted thoughts about the war were partisan. I guess it’s disturbing that some folks would assume they were partisan, but otherwise, I don’t see anything remarkable about it.
Daniel
By the way, here’s a FAQ about Iraq’s constitutional referendum process.
I don’t see anything surprising here—we knew that there was strong Sunni opposition to the draft constitution, but no clear signal that the opposition would be overwhelming enough to get 2/3 majorities in three provinces. Lo and behold, we see evidence of strong opposition but not necessarily of definitive rejection.
Like Daniel, I’m unsure what outcome to root for here, in terms of the best impact on Iraqi stability. On the one hand, if the constitution is accepted, then despite its flaws it will at least provide a basis on which to start an actual government. The longer true national self-determination is delayed, the greater the chance that more Iraqis will get frustrated enough to collapse into every-group-for-itself factionalism.
On the other hand, if the constitution is rejected, then it’s back to square one—well, square one and a half—with December 2005 elections for a new transitional government and a new draft constitution due by October 2006. This will be frustrating for most Iraqis, but it will at least reassure the Sunni minority that they do have an effective political voice and should stay in the political process rather than just lapsing into full-scale civic insurrection.
What worries me most in the OP’s linked report is that the probable scale-tipper, the province of Nineveh, is projected to be a pretty close call, and is also one of the provinces being investigated for possible electoral fraud. That means that we’ve got a potential “Florida 2000” situation there: no matter which way the vote is called, the circumstances might be murky enough that the losers will feel cheated, and the overall legitimacy of the process will be questioned.
Why the temper tantrum? 
I stated my point in my post: Starting a democracy isn’t easy.
Just because two out of seventeen provinces rejected the constitution doesn’t mean that “it’s not going to really add much to the stability of Iraq.”
It’s disturbing that this even needs to be stated. I’m sure your position has been consistent. But, any reasonable person would not wish failure for the US and Iraq just because of a partisan hatred of Bush and his policies. That you feel you need to pre-emptively jump to say that you don’t feel that way is what I find disturbing.
That this constitution pass is obviously in the best interests of Bush and of the United States. It is not so obviously in the best interests of Iraq. I hardly think that is an unreasonable position to take.
Because you used a sexual metaphor to insult everyone with the first post, and implied that we were exulting in a possible failure. Gee, and then you wondered why I felt the need to make it clear that I wasn’t a partisan hack, exultingin a possible failure? :rolleyes:
Well, thanks, Captain Obvious: I think we can all agree that starting a democracy isn’t easy. Nobody is suggesting that this disproves the “Democracy is Easy!” concept: people are suggesting that the constitution is, right now, in a precarious place, and that that’s something interesting to discuss, and that orgies aren’t quite in order yet.
You’re right that no reasonable person would wish failure etc. However, partisan hacks love to come into threads like this and accuse liberals of wishing for just this, sometimes with sexual metaphors; I was trying to head this off.
Danile
Well in another current thread in GD a poster has said that there are a lot of people that think that way. Left Hand of Dorkness is activly posting in that thread so I can see why he might want to throw in such a statement.
Hey, if the shoe fits…
I wasn’t wondering anything at all. I knew exactly why you needed your disclaimer. It’s simply that I find it disturbing that you do need such a disclaimer! You’re side has become so anti-American in it’s quest to bash Bush that you need to post such a disclaimer. That is the disturbing part, get it? Sheesh.
Oh, come on now. You can’t push the responsibility onto people like me who simply point this stuff out. If you really want to head this stuff off then why don’t you guys attack those on the left who do wish for failure. It happens on the board often enough, and it only tends to be the conservatives who challenge it.
Um, Debaser, it seems to me that you’re kinda just pissing in everybody’s cornflakes here. A perfectly respectable debate was started on the issue “Would the electoral rejection of the Iraqi draft constitution ultimately be a good or bad thing for the stability of Iraq?”
Instead of actually addressing this issue, you seem to have just tossed off a truism to the effect that “hey, adopting constitutions is tough” and then devoted yourself to complaining that some anti-Bush types are wishing for failure in Iraq just to make Bush look bad.
I think this is beside the point, and I’d rather hear what you have to say on the actual subject of discussion. Would Iraq be better off in the long run if the constitution’s “bit of bother” turns into an electoral rejection and they get to take another shot at drafting it? Why or why not?
Debaser, more interested in inconsistent and pornographic ad hominems than in an actual debate, can be safely discarded. I’ll not respond to more of his tripe.
Daniel
Well, that was awfully helpful too.
All right, I’ll shut up and stop junior-modding. But I really do think this is a nail-bitingly fascinating and crucial issue, and I’d love to hear more actual opinions and discussions on it.
Fair enough. MHO on this is that any constitution at this point is a good constitution. As long as Iraq is a democracy and making progress then lets keep them moving forward. It doesn’t have to be perfect.
Having a free and democratic Iraq with a less than perfect constitution NOW is a lot better than having an Iraq tossing and turning with the hopes of having a perfect constitution LATER.
Regardless, any form of democratic government would be preferrable to the whims of an evil dictator that they had before.
I take your point about the Sunni minorty feeling like they have a say, but I think that would be a very negative thing if they are able to stop the process now. It would embolden the terrorists and delay the timing of the US being able to leave. These alone are reason enough to hope for the constitution’s success. Also, though, is the idea of initiative. As you said, a defeat at this stage would mean going back to square one. It’s important to have progress. Moving forward with democracy will give the Sunnis plenty of time to feel like they have a say in future elections. (Hopefully.)
Even if it’s an oppressive theocracy like Iran, combined with legalized retribution against the Sunnis and provision for Kurdistan’s secession? Are you sure? Because that’s what this constitution creates.
Why is that in the subjunctive? That seems to be the reality today.
Do you really think this process goes in that direction?
Am I sure that it’s better than Saddam’s regime? Yes. Of course I’m sure. The entire country breaking up into civil war would be preferrable to Saddam IMO. You really can’t get much worse than him.
If the Kurds seceed from the rest of Iraq and form their own country than that’s fine with me. Maybe it’s for the best even. Turkey might not like it, but it’s certainly preferrable for the Kurds to be living under a dictator that gassed them by the thousand.
Do you have a cite about legalized retribution against the Sunnis?
I’m saying if the Sunnis are successful in stopping the constitution. That’s not the reality today. Yet, anyway. (Unless I missed something. I haven’t watched the news in about 24 hours. ;))
Yes. I do. Iraq is moving towards democracy. Maybe it won’t work. Maybe the Sunni minority won’t ever like it. There are a hundred “maybes”. But democracy is all we’ve got. It’s not perfect, and it doesn’t always work, but it’s the best way to run a country. The Sunni’s are used to having all the power, and now that there will be a democracy and they don’t have a majority they will no longer have all the power. There isn’t any way to stop this, so we have to just move forward and hope for the best. They will have some say in things if they go out and vote. Hopefully, as democracy takes hold they will come to appreciate this. Maybe not. We’ll see.
Yet that isn’t your call to make, or mine, or anyone else’s who doesn’t have to live with it day to day. How many more people would we have to kill or torture before you’d reconsider? How different from the run-of-the-mill US_supported military dictator, found in many countries, do you think Saddam really was?
Obviously a cite isn’t possible yet, but it follows inevitably from the Shiites being put in power under a theocracy.
Depends on what the meaning of “democracy” is. The USSR had a constitution and elections too.
Hope is not a strategy.
Does your concept of democracy involve respect for the rights of the minority? There is no evidence that that is present here, or will be, or that Sunni representation and say is anything more than a sham to satisfy the Americans.
The point is, this really should’ve been the Iraqis own decision to make and not forced down their throats at the point of an armed invasion. And I’m guessing that a whole lot of Iraqis would choose the return of Saddam in a heartbeat over the current situation, let alone a full-scale civil war.
While I realize that you have not violated the letter of this rule of GD, you are clearly in violation of its spirit.
Stick with discussing the issues and not attributing emotions to other posters that have not been expressed, particularly in unnecessarily crude metaphors.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
In the case of our Constitution, no one who didn’t want it was forced into it, especially under a deadline. How is this remotely related to the conditions for ratification of the Iraqi constitution?