News Iraq's government

  • Thread starter klusener
  • Start date
57
0
BAGHDAD (AP) — 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.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-iraq26.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
279
0
Just gets better and better, doesn't it?
 
210
0
Just gets better and better, doesn't it?
what the hell did you expect.... The Baghdad Mcdonalds to open, and lots of closet presperterians to run out shouting ?.?.?.?

DEMOCRACY comes from the people.... If they want to have an Islamic state then if you ALLOW them democractic rights they will vote for it!! Why does Freedom of thoughts, when expressed, outcome have to be prepackaged?

I really hate the world right now! :eek:
 
279
0
No need to shout at *me,* I pretty much expected exactly what's happening.

I agree that you don't impose democracy from the outside. But that's not why we went in. We went to quell an "immediate threat." Remember? (I never believed it.)

"Spreading democracy" was cooked up later, when it was beyond clear that there were no WMD. Bush couldn't bear the thought of saying he was wrong, so he came up with a new reason to invade.

He is *still* tying the war to 9/11. :rolleyes:

Edit: rereading your post, I don't really follow your position. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or arguing with me. So my response may not make much sense to you. C'est le vie.
 
Last edited:
210
0
sorry for shouting...

My post was emotional, and it was because I thought that you were making derogitory comments at the Iraqis for using there free democratic right to start voting in a goverment they wanted...

Is this why you said "Just gets better and better, doesn't it?"

If not then sorry :blushing:
 
Last edited:

solutions in a box

Govenments in the Middle East have historically used; force, theology, or a combination of both at the national as well as the local level to administer the laws.

The idea that the Bush Administrtion thought that they could change a form of governing that has existed for over a thousand years doesn't surprize me.

The fact that the American People bought that "fairy tail" does.
 
279
0
Anttech said:
sorry for shouting...

My post was emotional, and it was because I thought that you were making derogitory comments at the Iraqis for using there free democratic right to start voting in a goverment they wanted...

Is this why you said "Just gets better and better, doesn't it?"

If not then sorry :blushing:
<chuckle> I wasn't making derogatory comments about the Iraqis. I was saying "stupid american warmongers."

Selling a war to the public for no good reason. Then watching the deaths mount. Then watching the cost mount. Then getting bad forecast after bad forecast and shades of "quagmires." And having the reason for the invasion change every few months. (Our "war on terror" is currently being re-branded as a "Global Struggle against Violent Extremism".... Ummm.... why? I'm not sure, but it sure sounds like another switch to keep the effort palatable to the American people. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26strategy.html )

The idea that after all this - after *all this,* the world ends up with a sacred text being the guiding principle for the "new democracy" is just.... You know.

We backed Saddam when he provided a secular opposition to the Ayatollah, in my limited understanding. Now we have a quasi-religious leader in the US, getting rid of Saddam, and we're (possibly) watching Iraq become more religious as a *result* of this war. It will be interesting (and possibly very distressing) to see what happens to the role of women in the "new" Iraq.

I don't like the world either. I don't like that my young kids are growing up with this "identity." Well, maybe if we're lucky their generation will have more sense, as a result.
 
279
0
solutions in a box said:
Govenments in the Middle East have historically used; force, theology, or a combination of both at the national as well as the local level to administer the laws.

The idea that the Bush Administrtion thought that they could change a form of governing that has existed for over a thousand years doesn't surprize me.

The fact that the American People bought that "fairy tail" does.
We forget - that wasn't the issue when he sold it.

Rather, he told us we were in "immediate danger." Remember?

All the yellow cake stuff coming to light now - does that ring any bells? Remember? The state of the union address? We "thought" Saddam was going to nuke Israel or Iran or somewhere.

If he had tried to sell the war as spreading democracy, in 2003, he wouldn't have been successful. He (actually, probably Rove) came up with that to make us all feel better when our screw up over WMD became obvious. Let's not forget the sequence of events.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
Anttech said:
sorry for shouting...

My post was emotional, and it was because I thought that you were making derogitory comments at the Iraqis for using there free democratic right to start voting in a goverment they wanted...
It's the framers of the Iraqi constitution that are putting this in, not the Iraqi voting public. Were the delegates that are drafting this constitution even voted in? Will this constitution need to be approved by the voting public before ratification? If so, then so be it. If not, you can't claim that the 'people' of Iraq did this out of their free democratic right.
 

alexandra

klusener said:
BAGHDAD (AP) — 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.
...
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.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-iraq26.html [Broken]
Here is what women's rights are going to change from (I have bolded the more striking bits for emphasis):
Women have played important roles throughout Iraq's history. It was in the early years of secular Baathist socialism and early in Saddam Hussein's rule that women's status and rights were formally enshrined in legislation and treaties. In 1970, a new constitution nominally made Iraqi women and men equal under the law (although family law continued to favour men). Under Saddam Hussein, women's literacy and education improved, and restrictions on women outside the home were lifted. Women won the right to vote and to run for political office, and they could drive, work outside the home and hold jobs traditionally held by men. Before 1991, female literacy rates in Iraq were the highest in the region, Iraq had achieved nearly universal primary education for girls as well as boys, and Iraqi women were widely considered to be among the most educated and professional women in the Arab world.

http://www.womenwarpeace.org/iraq/iraq.htm
And...
Hussein, to the consternation of Islamic fundamentalists and the Islamic Republic of Iran, liberated women and offered them high level government and industry jobs. The Baathist government provided social services to Iraqi people unprecedented in other Middle Eastern country. Under Hussein's auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels, supported families of soldiers killed in war; granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Earlier, Hussein's government had broken up the large landholdings in the first place and redistributed land to peasant farmers.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/biography_saddam_hussein.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the US government is running scared for another reason. I know that the ties have been improving between Baghdad and Tehran over the last year or so:

Iran pledges to strengthen security ties with Iraq

Iran's Interior Minister Musavi Lari said Monday that the Islamic Republic will strengthen its security relations with neighboring Iraq.

Lari, who is here to attend the second meeting of interior ministers from Iraq's neighboring countries due to open on Tuesday, made the remarks to Iranian media reporters, Xinhua learnt from reliable Iranian sources here.

Lari told the reporters that in order to strengthen the security ties between the two sides, Iran would help train Iraqis and provide customs materials for Iraqi border security.

Meanwhile, Lari said Iran and Iraq would exchange more official visits, adding that Iran would also help Iraq in economic field as the war-torn country suffered a lot.

Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war during the 1980s, but relations have improved since a new Iraqi Shiite-dominated government was formed in April.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, leading a large delegation, arrived in Tehran on Saturday afternoon and kicked off the diplomatic intercommunion of the highest level between the two neighbors since the outbreak of the 1980-1988 war.

During the landmark visit, the two countries signed on Sunday two memoranda of understanding (MoU) on bilateral cooperation in the fields of trade and transportation.

The development of border markets, the establishment of Iran's trade bureau in Baghdad and the cooperation of the Iraqi side in this regard were also among issues agreed upon by the two sides.

http://english.people.com.cn/200507/19/eng20050719_196830.html
Iranian gas victims want justice from Saddam tribunal
By Angus McDowall in Tehran
Published: 26 July 2005

The Iranian government is to contact the Iraqi tribunal prosecuting Saddam Hussein to seek justice for the Iranian victims of Iraqi chemical weapons attacks which contaminated up to 100,000 people.

Tehran promised last week to present a dossier to the tribunal documenting Saddam's use of poison gas in the 1980-88 war with Iran. So far, the only charges Saddam will face are those relating to crimes inside Iraq and during the 1990-91 occupation of Kuwait. Western countries offered Saddam tacit support during his war with Iran, refusing to blame Iraq for its invasion and the subsequent use of poison gas. Although Iran possessed chemical weapons from the mid-1980s onwards, it did not use them.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article301673.ece [Broken]
Wednesday July 6, 09:25 PM Reuters

Iran, Iraq resume military talks after long break
Photo : REUTERS
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran and Iraq resumed high-level military talks on Wednesday for the first time since the two neighbors went to war in 1980, pledging to pursue peace and security in the region.

Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi hailed his meeting in Tehran with Iranian counterpart Admiral Ali Shamkhani as a breakthrough after decades of mistrust dating from the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

"Up to today we had no relations so there are many important issues to be discussed," the semi-official ISNA students news agency quoted him as saying.

"Our goal is to assure our Iranian brothers that Iraq is a source of good ... not of evil and that Iraq wants to be a pillar of peace, stability and security in the region."

Iraqi officials have criticized Iran on many occasions since the 2003 U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein for allowing fighters and arms to cross their shared border to create instability in Iraq.

But the two officials made no mention of such problems in their public comments on Wednesday.

"The talks today were meant to heal the wounds of the past and begin a future based on fundamental relations between Iran and Iraq," Shamkhani said.

"We hope this visit will help the expansion of bilateral ties," he added.

Dulaimi's visit precedes the arrival in Tehran next week of a large Iraqi delegation headed by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/050706/15/uzt8.html [Broken]
From what I understand, the second article about the dossier, the Iranians want the USA to stand beside Saddam in the dock because of their complicity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
loseyourname said:
It's the framers of the Iraqi constitution that are putting this in, not the Iraqi voting public. Were the delegates that are drafting this constitution even voted in? Will this constitution need to be approved by the voting public before ratification? If so, then so be it. If not, you can't claim that the 'people' of Iraq did this out of their free democratic right.
Can we claim Americans invaded Iraq out of their free democratic right? A caller submitted this opinion to CNN - Our constitution was created by very intelligent men and has served America well. Now that we aren't using it anymore, why not donate it to Iraq?
alexandra said:
Here is what women's rights are going to change from (I have bolded the more striking bits for emphasis):And...
Interesting that women's rights were strong under the Shah in Iran as well. Hmm... should we be worried about the right-wing conservatives in the U.S. who want a theocracy in which women's rights would be suppressed? :tongue:
The Smoking Man said:
I think the US government is running scared for another reason. I know that the ties have been improving between Baghdad and Tehran over the last year or so:

From what I understand, the second article about the dossier, the Iranians want the USA to stand beside Saddam in the dock because of their complicity.
Will we ever know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? :rolleyes: One reason Saddam's trial has been delayed for so long is because they are getting the spin ducks in a row...
 
279
0
SOS2008 said:
Interesting that women's rights were strong under the Shah in Iran as well. Hmm... should we be worried about the right-wing conservatives in the U.S. who want a theocracy in which women's rights would be suppressed?
Yes. Though I doubt we'll be wearing burkas, we will definitely lose liberties.

It's happening right now. Roberts is about to be confirmed. I would never abort, but having been in a condition where I would have lost a job to carry a child healthfully.....

Overturning RvW is definitely a threat to eroding women's rights. There are a thousand other manifestations of religiosity leading to lost women's rights. Equal pay, glass ceiling, increasing sexism.... You know, this christian community that is fueling the ultra right wing doesn't tend to have a whole lot of females in pastoral positions. The females are tending to make the lunches for the kids and cleaning up and so on.

As you alluded in another thread.... my biggest fear is that Bush might actually get away, at some point, with preventing an election, as he floated a year ago. I could foresee him taking us into a conflict with Iran and using that as justification to stay head of state.

Sick. The very fact that he *floated* the idea a year ago scares the **** out of me. This ain't the America I was taught that it was. What man in his right mind starts a war on false pretenses and then suggests that he has to stay in office as a result?
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
SOS2008 said:
Can we claim Americans invaded Iraq out of their free democratic right?
No. Since I already know that you think that and it seems self-evident - Iraq didn't vote to be invaded and there is no way they could have as they didn't vote on anything - I'm not sure why you're asking.

A caller submitted this opinion to CNN - Our constitution was created by very intelligent men and has served America well. Now that we aren't using it anymore, why not donate it to Iraq?
Fine with me. It's a good constitution. But again, to be democratic, it would need to be ratified by a public vote of all voting citizens.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
loseyourname said:
No. Since I already know that you think that and it seems self-evident - Iraq didn't vote to be invaded and there is no way they could have as they didn't vote on anything - I'm not sure why you're asking.
Sorry 'bout the confusion. I was referring to Americans here in the U.S.

U.S. Law
Under the United States Constitution, Presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected.[53] Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily[54], and Congress delegated its war powers to the President[55]; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iraq#U.S._Law

The war did not have clear majority support by the people. Our representatives in our Republic did not represent us (wusses). The Executive Branch, and Commander in Chief, well he has proven to be unfit to lead.
 
Last edited:

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
It's their business how they handle government and religion.

That said, interjecting religion into their constitution, especially now, is a very bad idea and Bremer was right to block it as long as he had a say. You have three main groups with different cultures that aren't going to be able to agree to the role religion plays in their government.

If the Islamic law looks more like Shiite religious control, it will reinforce some Sunnis' fear of what life will be like under a Shiite majority - that the Shiites will use this opportunity to pay back Hussein's oppression with oppression of all Sunnis. It will prolong problems in the Sunni regions of Iraq.

The Kurds won't be very excited about it either. The Kurds want as much autonomy for each region as possible. Unless the Shiites have the military might to control Iraq the way Hussein did, the Kurds aren't likely to accept having Shiite culture and laws pushed on them. The Iraqi's constitution definitely has to take the stance of limited central government and protection of "states' rights" if they want this to work. If the Kurds bolt and form their own country, the trouble spreads from Central Iraq to Northern Iraq to Turkey and Iran.

Iraqis have a pretty tough challenge in banding some pretty diverse groups into one country. This doesn't seem like the time to be making the job tougher - especially if they're relying on outside countries to maintain what little stability exists there, now.
 

kat

12
0
pattylou said:
We forget - that wasn't the issue when he sold it.

Rather, he told us we were in "immediate danger." Remember?

QUOTE]Hmmm, I don't remember that quote. can you dig it up for me...where he said.. "we are in immediate danger"..Please? All of his speaches and statements are on one of the .gov sites. I'm sure you can back this up fairly quickly. :wink:
 

kat

12
0
As I understand it, the delegation has asked for a 30 day extension to contiinue putting together the new consitition. This would put the deadline to mid september and the vote sometime in November. What's the female to male ratio of voters in Iraq? Anyone? I suspect if it passes the election in the fall...then it will have been formulated to be accepted by the majority of Iraqi's including the women. If not..it goes back to be re-written.
Democracy, what a lovely thing it is.
 
As far as reason's for the war changing I seriously doubt they have. The propaganda may have changed but I'm sure that the real reasons haven't and I'm pretty sure that one of them was to oust Saddam and put a democratic government in place.
They may not have voted for their constitution, at least not yet, but they definitely voted in the people who are framing it. It's their choice if they wish to have a government run by theocrats. I do hope that the women will retain their right to vote.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
SOS2008 said:
Sorry 'bout the confusion. I was referring to Americans here in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iraq#U.S._Law

The war did not have clear majority support by the people. Our representatives in our Republic did not represent us (wusses). The Executive Branch, and Commander in Chief, well he has proven to be unfit to lead.
Look, I don't exactly support this war, but since when has a military action required the consent of the voting public? The Americans actually over there fighting did consent - by joining the armed forces in the first place, knowing that someday they may be called to fight, and whether they approved of the reasons or not, it would be their job to do it.

Look at your link a little more closely. The US has not declared a state of war since WWII. Congress gave the president the authority to commence military action, something that has been done many times before, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in Iraq the first time.

Now what exactly does any of this have to do with Iraq's constitution, or do you just feel the need to throw a Bush bash into every thread, as a response to posts that have absolutely nothing to do with Bush or anything associated with him? Do you or do you not agree with me that Iraq's constitution cannot be considered democratic unless it is ratified by a majority of the full voting public? If you don't, say why. If you do, let that be the end of it. You don't need to justify it by listing all of the things America has done that you think were not democratic. Even if you're correct in your perception, two wrongs don't make a right. Don't respond to this by telling every way in which Bush and his cronies have lied to the American public and to Congress because it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the case at hand.
 

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
loseyourname said:
Do you or do you not agree with me that Iraq's constitution cannot be considered democratic unless it is ratified by a majority of the full voting public?
I don't think you can call a theocracy a democracy in the "enlightened" sense. Imagine a change of the American constitution where it is added that, say, all laws are to be in agreement with Christian faith, and it gets voted some day...

If the "democratic process" votes in such a theocracy, it just terminated itself. Democracy in the modern sense is more than just "the right to vote once", it is the recognition of some universal rights, ONE of which is that people have the right to say who will govern them (another one being that they are equal for the law, for instance, and that basic human rights are to be respected).
Even if the Iraqi people vote this, then they just terminate their potential democracy, because the move is irreversible. If it is written in their constitution that "nothing can be proposed that is against Islam", then there's no legal procedure that can take this out, ever (because that would then be against Islam, it could be argued).
It is as if it were written in a constitution that every proposition to change the constitution is unconstitutional. If some fools vote this in, then they've just locked themselves into a non-democratic system, because now the possibility doesn't exist anymore for people to take their own destiny in their hands after that. Such a thing is fundamentally UNdemocratic, even if it has been voted at a certain point, because it rules out FOR EVER any peaceful change of the text.

If ever that text gets adopted in Irak, it will become a copy of Iran, for the following reason: every law will have to be checked against the constitution, and as such, will have to be checked against Islam. Now, who's going to do that ? A council of religious leaders of course. Not people who are elected or something. So you'll end up with a council of religious leaders who have VETO right on all laws. Where do we have such a thing ? Iran tells you something ?

And what did the West win in this ? It is known that such theocracies are cracking down hard on Islamist fundamentalism and associated terrorism. And if Iraq and Iran become good buddies, we might even see a domino effect (of theocracies) in the region...
 
279
0
kat said:
pattylou said:
We forget - that wasn't the issue when he sold it.

Rather, he told us we were in "immediate danger." Remember?
Hmmm, I don't remember that quote. can you dig it up for me...where he said.. "we are in immediate danger"..Please? All of his speaches and statements are on one of the .gov sites. I'm sure you can back this up fairly quickly. :wink:
Mea culpa.

I shouldn't have put it in quotes, I am a bit imprecise with emphasis at times and should have bolded the phrase. I also should have been more precise with the wording. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I'll fix it now, and provide the reference:

pattylou said:
We forget - that wasn't the issue when he sold it.

Rather, he told us we were in "immediate danger." Remember?
Would more accurately read:

We forget - that wasn't the issue when he sold it.

Rather, he used the September 11th tragedy to insinuate that we were in immediate danger. Remember?
This is in contrast to the notion put forth by SiaB that we Americans went to Iraq to "change a form of governing that has existed for over a thousand years."

It is also in contrast to the idea put forth by Pengwuino in another thread (If I recall) that we went to Iraq to free people.

Here's the reference from the SotU address in 2003. Please forgive the length. Bush seemed to try to bend over backwards to convince us that Saddam was on the brink of developing a weapon - Bush reported every piece of evidence - even to statements made by prisoners - to imply an imminent threat. And, to cover his bases, he explicitly said the threat might not be imminent (I suppose the intelligence wasn't good enough to really suss that out) and that America should attack anyway.:

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar.

Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world.

In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America.

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror.

Once again, this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers.

(snip)

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

(Snip)

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

(Snip)

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

(Snip)

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail.

(Snip)

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
(The appeal to God really was a bit over the top, in my opinion.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

And, then a bit of news that is thankfully less verbose, and more recent, and in direct contrast to all of the above. Unfortunately, I don't believe this bit ever made it into a State of the Union address. I wonder why.:

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

Thanks Kat, I appreciate the opportunity to air these points, as often as possible.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
vanesch said:
I don't think you can call a theocracy a democracy in the "enlightened" sense. Imagine a change of the American constitution where it is added that, say, all laws are to be in agreement with Christian faith, and it gets voted some day...

If the "democratic process" votes in such a theocracy, it just terminated itself.
That's a very good point. I hadn't even thought of that. Another strike against the premise of this thread.
 

Related Threads for: Iraq's government

  • Posted
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top