Especially when there’s no need to try to make him look bad. He can do that all by himself.
It does seem to me that comparing the Iraq constitutional process to that of the formation and adoption of the US Constitution is invalid.
Iraq if rife with ethnic and religious differences and their one principle resource for export, oil, is unequally distributed in the area.
Although there were religious differences among the 13 American colonies, there was little or no ethnic strife and resources were more equally shared along with a rather active intercolonial trade.
Two provinces turning down a document which is disliked by a significan fraction of the population of Iraq might very well be highly significant. From what I’ve read, Iraq isn’t really a country but is a collection of loosely connected tribes. It was held together by force by the British and French and later by Sadaam.
I strongly suspect that if only two of the states had opted out, the Constitution would have never been ratified–if the states had included some pair of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. (And, in the end, none of the states rejected ratification.) Claiming that “only” two Iraq states have rejected ratification while ignoring the fact that they are the Sunni strongholds, (and, thus, home to the people most likely to have gone from powerful association with the Ba’ath Party to essentially powerless and potentially discriminated against religious minority), is certainly in keeping with the season–as one whistles past the graveyard.
WTF? You asked, and I answered. Nothing is our call to make that we discuss in GD.
So, when you said that the constitution creates legalized retribution against the Sunnis you were lying? OK. Good to know.
I’m not saying it is.
The Sunnis are a minority. They get a vote, just like everyone else, but since there is less of them they will never have a lot of power. That’s just how democracy works. What in your mind would give them “rights” as a minority. Should they get more political power despite their small numbers just because they are blowing stuff up?
I apologize if I was out of line. I wasn’t aware of any such rule, and certainly didn’t mean to attribute anything to posters that they don’t actually express.
What are you talking about? I’m certainly aware that the two regions to reject ratification are Sunni strongholds. That’s what we’ve been discussing. How am I ignoring anything? I’ve specifically addressed this in my posts already. Your accusation here that I’m “ignoring” this fact is either a lie or a mistake.
Overall, now that the official results are in, I think I’m encouraged by them. I’m not entirely convinced by the election commission’s assurances that the balloting was squeaky clean as a newly washed whistle and all, and I think we’ll hear more about that in the future, but I don’t think any of the results will be overturned. In particular, it’s a relief that the Nineveh vote wasn’t very close: it would be hard to make a convincing case that electoral irregularities or fraud by themselves could have turned a 66% “No” vote into a 55% one.
The constitutional problems are still there, and are likely to have some undesirable consequences, but I feel hopeful that at least the majority of Iraqis are going to go on taking electoral politics seriously. The more they can actually accomplish electorally, the smaller the incentive will be to abandon the political process and say it with bullets instead. (The news of recent bombings is not encouraging, but I suppose it was to be expected.)
Now it’s time to start thinking about the December elections for the first actual (non-transitional) post-Saddam Iraqi government. All interested can join us over in Zoe’s “Who Selects the Iraqi Candidates?” thread.
It wasn’t meant to be a perfectly equal comparison. Obviously the two are different in many profound ways.
Yes, but all this just strengthens the comparison the way I used it, not the other way around. The situation was much easier for the US forming it’s constitution. There was less ethnic and religious strife, there weren’t any suicide bomers blowing up government officials, etc. Yet, despite this there were still problems with the process! Everyone wasn’t happy with the results the first couple tries at it.
That was my only point. Starting a democracy isn’t easy, and it’s not time to start giving up hope yet. Yes, two Sunni regions didn’t pass it. But it’s looking like the others all did. This was a positive step forward, and a good thing.
Is a little optimism to terrible?
Agreed.
This is why I’ve always had a feeling that the country may well be better off without being united. The dreaded “civil war” that people talk about as if it were terrible might actually be for the best. If the Kurds break off from the rest of the country there might not be that much fighting involved. They stay north, everybody else stays south. It’s not as if the central government even has the ability to go up there and try to prevent seccession anyways. A civil war may well be less bloody than trying to hold it together.
We’re not there yet, and I hope they’re able to hold it together. But, the dreaded civil war scenario doesn’t sound that bad to me if it does come to that.
While I don’t like the idea of a civil war at all, I’ve never been clear on why the Kurds aren’t allowed to have their own state: where’s the harm in that? Sure, Turkey doesn’t like it, but screw that. Let Turkey know that invading Kurdistan will have dire consequences for their role on the world stage, and I think they’ll hold their peace.
Maybe there are good reasons for shoehorning the Kurds into Iraq, but I’ve yet to hear them.
And the election results have me cautiously optimistic as well. Although let’s not all start–err, counting our chickens yet. Still, cautiously optimistic.
That comment was made in response to your paternalistic suggestion that what *you * think is best for Iraq is what we should try to make happen. What the *Iraqis * think is best for Iraq is what should and will happen, and anything we do at cross-purposes can only hurt. Clear now?
Pit it or retract it. Your demand for a cite as factual for what was clearly offered as an opinion/prediction was inappropriate, but not as inappropriate as *that * remark.
But it’s all you’re offering.
No, you need a deeper understanding of democracy, then. A minority has to feel part of the process, with rights that must be respected and views that must be considered, for a democracy to function. Without that, they have no real choice but to revolt and/or secede. That’s what Iraq appears to be heading toward, innit?
Other way around. No, because if the Shiites want to have an integrated, peaceful, democratic country, they’ll have to do what I just described. A true constitutional democracy doesn’t bestow rights, it guarantees them. Clear now, friend?
The other nations containing potential components of an independent Kurdistan, namely Syria and Iran, also don’t like it (warning, Wash. Post reg.-req. link). They are apparently starting to negotiate with Turkey on cooperative Kurd-containment measures.
And the American position isn’t unambiguous either: on the one hand, we’ve been supporting the Iraqi constitution that would give Iraqi Kurds more autonomy and probably encourage Kurdish nationalism, but on the other hand, we’ve recently been cooperating with Turkey in strikes against its Marxist Kurdish separatists, the PKK.
I’m not saying it would necessarily be wrong or unjust in the abstract to support the formation of an independent Kurdistan. But it will definitely stir some shit, and there will definitely be harm resulting. I seriously doubt that Turkey, Iran, Syria, or even most Iraqis would let go of their piece of Kurdistan without a fight.
Hmm–is the idea that if we just declared the Kurd-inhabited regions of Iraq to be Kurdistan, there’s no way the Kurds in Syria, Iran, and Turkey would be satisfied with that, and this seed of a Kurdistan would attempt to spread into other countries?
I hadn’t thought about that. That could indeed get ugly.
You stated that “* [the constitution creates] an oppressive theocracy like Iran, combined with legalized retribution against the Sunnis and provision for Kurdistan’s secession*”
This isn’t an opinion, it’s a factual statement. If the constitution did in fact create legal retribution against the Sunnis then you would be able to prove that with a cite. It doesn’t, so you can’t.
When I asked for you to back up your claim with a cite, you should have simply apologized and retracted. Instead, you’re just digging yourself in deeper.
I’m not suggesting that we “start” a war of seccession. I’m just suggesting that if the Kurds do, it might not be that bad.
Although, I do share the concerns about neighboring Kurds wanting a piece of the action and hell breaking loose as a result, as I’ve already stated.
Back after the first gulf war the US actually did encourage the Kurds to secceed from Saddam. He turned out to be tougher than we thought and the attempt failed, but I think it was a good idea at the time. If it worked, we might not be in the situation we’re in now.
The difficulty I see with bringing up the beginning US experience is the implied invitation to say that despite some birthing pains the US became one nation, ergo Iraq will too.
Nothing wrong with being on the side of optimism provided it is the optimistic side on realism and not just rose colored glasses. We need to look at Iraq as Iraq and not as an analog of some other place that turned out well.
Why does this need to be moved to the pit? You made a factual claim in GD. I asked you for a cite. You cannot provide one because your claim has no truth to it, yet refuse to retract. It sounds a lot like “lying” to me. I’ve called you out on this here in GD, which is exactly where I should.
The pit is where we would take it if we wanted to hurl insults at eachother. I don’t know why you keep insisting that we go there. Perhaps it’s because there you won’t need to back up your claims with cites?
Plus the added problem of cerating yet another nation in desperate need of aid and assistance. Keeping Iraq as one nation at least keeps one nation together and needing aid, while helping to develop its democracy and stability so that it can begin being financially independent in time. Splitting it up creates more East Timors, which though maybe nice for the people there to feel independent, means three nations requiring aid instead of one, with diluted resources and less to trade with the world.
