Iraq War Has Been Utterly Vindicated.

by kifyah! Mon Oct 17, 2005 15:45

including property inheritance and custody of children under this constitution than they had till now.

Did you know that?
Of course you did. constitutional expert you.

by no Mon Oct 17, 2005 16:36

And its particpation in it

Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision was handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court but barely mentioned in the German media. With careful reasoning, the judges ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated international law.

Further, they meticulously demonstrated that the German government, in contrast to its public protestations, had assisted in the aggression against Iraq without having any legal right to do so. Although the decision was made three months ago, the judgement and its legal arguments have only just been made available in written form, comprising more than 130 pages.
» reply

by Dagda Mon Oct 17, 2005 16:43

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

by Starstruck Mon Oct 17, 2005 17:24

Clearly the slaughter of so many innocent people was a worthy price to pay for this so-called free democracy.
To think that there are still people in the world who think like this makes me want to stay in my hous eand cry.
Igmorance mixed with complete stupidity,self-centredness,naivity,contempt and unscupulousness.
Shame.
One dictator for another.

by Noel Mon Oct 17, 2005 18:00

It must really stick in the craw when President Bush's foreign policy has yet another resounding success.
No amount of hyper-ventilating about the totally discredited 100,000 dead figure changes the fact there is a new democracy in the world.
Let freedom reign.

by Starstruck Mon Oct 17, 2005 18:05

Do you even know what democracy means?
If I was a religious type Id pray for your soul.
1 innocent victim is enough you heartless bastard.
How about the 1500 Americans killed,any of those related to you,seeing as you seem so intent on spreading freedom,why dont you get out there and give your life for it.
Coward like you wouldnt have the spirit.
Sad.

by R. Isible Mon Oct 17, 2005 18:18

According to the available information. It'll be interesting to remind the person that posted this about it in a couple of months! Kind of like some of the amusing "We found the WMD" posts that have been stored in Indymedia.ie archives. That's the fun thing about Open Publishing -- we can shove your face in your own excreta later down the road.

by umm yeah right Mon Oct 17, 2005 18:39

Monday, October 17, 2005
Peace in Iraq Still Elusive after Constitutional Referendum

http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/peace-in-iraq-still-elusive-after.html

Al-Hayat reports that 643,000 votes were cast in Ninevah Province (capital: Mosul). At the time it filed, 419,000 had been preliminarily counted, and the vote was running 75 percent in favor. Ninevah Province was the most likely place that Sunni Arabs opposing the constitution might be able to get a 2/3s "no" vote.

Several of my knowledgeable readers are convinced that the Ninevah voting results as reported so far look like fraud. One suspected that the Iraqi government so feared a defeat there that they over-did the ballot stuffing and ended up with an implausible result.

One of my Iraqi-American correspondents compared the turnout statistics from Ninevah and Diyala provinces last Jan. 30 to those coming out now, and found the current numbers completely unbelievable. He pointed out that the Iraqi Islamic Party had not garnered many votes in Ninevah last January, and its support of the constitution could not hope to explain the hundreds of thousands of "yes" votes the constitution appeared to receive on Saturday.

by Michael Mon Oct 17, 2005 21:50

Contradiction:
Your article's title says that "Iraq War Has Been Utterly Vindicated". Then the subtitle says however that "Iraq Constitution Is A Great Victory Over Terror". So which is it Jim - did America's shock and awe (=terror) work, or was it a failure? Did US-UK terror - in flagrance of the law - succeed in Iraq, or did it not?

by Mark C - Teache Mon Oct 17, 2005 23:02

There was a sandstorm in Iraq today and some of the ballot papers could not be delivered. The results of the election will not be available until at least tomorrow.

Democracry (if it existed) would be a nice thing for Iraq (be a nice thing for anywhere) but we must also note that when applauding something like America building whatever many hundreds of Schools and Hospitals and Shelters and what not in Iraq, they destroyed even more. The net effect is not in the Iraqis' favour - absolutely no nationalised industries left - at least under the Saddam regime (and this is not to vindicate him) they had free water, oil, electricity, gas, air-conditioning, public health, education (of course this was all before the sanctions - 'we feel the price was worth it') - the same as some other countries in the Middle East at present.

Mark Conroy.

by Mark C - Teacher Mon Oct 17, 2005 23:10

I bet all those that died in airstrikes today are delighted that there is a new democracy in the world.

Mark.

by Noel Tue Oct 18, 2005 00:00

'free water, oil, electricity, gas, air-conditioning, public health, education.'

Mark, you neglected to mention rape rooms, gassings, decapitations, mass graves, childrens prisons.
I hope the 'Teacher' portion you insist upon adding to your screen name is part of a double barrelled surname. For the sake of the children - tell me it's not your profession!

by kintama Tue Oct 18, 2005 00:33

Noel yet again tries to reduce Indymedia.ie to the level of some other sites which deal in trite comments and petty insults. Leaving aside the ridiculous irony in his latest post he has proven countless times in the past that he is impervious to reason. If he intends to move to this new 'democratic paradise' then fair play to him for having the courage of his convictions.
If not then the title applies.

by Barry Tue Oct 18, 2005 01:32

If you google the word "failure" whose name is top of the list .

As well as the word "asshole"

It just may have some relevance to the debate on GWs contribution to democracy .

by Mr. Frank Smartsworth Tue Oct 18, 2005 02:29

It's more than Saddam did.

Although, now that I think about it, Iraqis always did vote in those Presidential "elections".

Saddam always did really well. Of course, when you don't have anyone else on the ballot........

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Tue Oct 18, 2005 03:11

In October 2002, Iraq held an election. You could vote for Saddam or no Saddam. And Saddam won 100% of the votes.

In November 2004, the United States held presidential elections. In one precinct in the city of Gahanna, Ohio, 638 votes were cast and George Bush won 4528 of them. That’s 667 percent!

Clearly, Mr Bush has miraculous powers helping him.

by Mark C - Teacher Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:03

Of course Noel I don't have to point out the obvious to you: you clearly read my full comment, especially the bit directly preceeding what you quoted from, which said: "and this is not to vindicate him" (I was talking about Saddam there, but of course, again, I don't have to point out the obvious to you).

As an aside, and I feel it is silly to have to try to explain, "Teacher" is not part of an alias - it is part of me, it is what I do. I teach English and CSPE (Civic, Social, and Political Education). I do not enter my name on these threads as Mark Conroy Teacher, I enter it as Mark Conroy and under Organisation I enter Teacher which I think is what I should enter: I am, afterall, a teacher. I also would not like to enter my name as just "Mark" because I have no fear of people knowing who I am; I don't hide behind a single name, such as "Noel".

by Jim Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:36

You people cannot admit the TRUTH

Pre-2003 Iraq was a dictatorship.

In the year 2005 it is a democratic republic.

100,000 people marched on the streets of this city in opposition to the freedom on the Iraqi people.

May their shame be ETERNAL

by Mark C - Teacher Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:08

Jim,

First off:
Do not say "You people" because I think the person who wrote the post originally would agree with you. Try saying something like: "most of the people on this site do not know what they are on about" and this might allow you some degree of credibility.

Secondly:
Yes, pre-2003 Iraq was a dictatorship. Post-2003. Of course this was obvious. But that does not mean that the war was entered into on justifiable grounds. I mean, if America had said: "Iraq is a horrible dictatorship, the sanctions haven't worked against Mr Hussein and for this reason we have decided to oust him with a short-sharp-shock and allow the Iraqi people to put in a place a system of government that they would like to see", then perhaps they might have had some excuse for the state of the nation at the moment.

I do not think that anyone marched in opposition to the freedom of the Iraqi people. I don't want to talk for 100,000 people but I do feel that we all marched because we would like to see freedom for the Iraqis but not the kind of "freedom" that the Amercan regime had planned for them. The free-market does not equal freedom in the sense of freedom to do have and do what one wants. The free market itself is very like the Totalitarian system (of course I'd be assassinated here for directing you towards the work of Noam Chomsky, so perhaps have a look at the film or read the book The Corporation, and I think Naomi Klein has also written on the subject).

I am not sure that Iraq in 2005 is a democratic republic. Most democratic republics are not under occupation from foreign forces. Most democratic republics own their own industries or have decided to privatise them; Iraq's have been taken from them. Most democratic republics do not have curfews. Most democratic republics have more than two hours electricity a day.

I wonder can the people of Iraq get a visa to go travelling. If not, you could hardly call them free. The best they are is under house arrest.

Here is an interesting article by Patrick Cockburn.

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick07212005.html (Patrick Cockburn was awarded the 2005 Martha Gellhorn prize for war reporting in recognition of his writing on Iraq over the past year. His new memoir, The Broken Boy, has just been published in the UK.)

by Babies of Iraq Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:31

Depleted Uranium

by Mark C - Teacher Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:05

Please don't waste bandwidth by saying something as off the cuff as "Depleted Uranium". Give us some more information. What about the depleted uranium? Why did you place the phrase here?

Two words: "Comment Properly".

Mark

by D in the corner Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:12

Stop being such a teacher.

by yo Jim! Tue Oct 18, 2005 14:08

The referendum is only hours away and the final version of the constitution still hasn’t reached many people. Areas with a Sunni majority are complaining that there aren’t polling stations for kilometers around- many of these people don’t have cars and even if they did, what good would it do while there’s a curfew until Sunday? Polling stations should be easily accessible in every area.

This is like déjà vu from January when people in Mosul and other Sunni areas complained that they didn’t have centers to vote in or that their ballot boxes never made it to the counting stations.

American media is trying to make it sound like Sunnis have suddenly been mollified with the changes made in a flurry of covert meetings these last few days, but the reality is that the only Sunni party openly supporting the constitution is the Iraqi Islamic Party which represents a very, very small percentage of Sunnis.

Most educated Iraqis want to vote against the constitution. This makes the fact that Iraqis abroad aren’t being allowed to vote this time around worrisome. Why was it vital for them to vote for a temporary government back in January but it’s not necessary for them to contribute to this referendum which will presumably decide a permanent constitution for generations and generations of Iraqis? Could it be that the current Iranian inclined government knew that many Iraqis abroad didn’t like the constitution because of federalism, women’s rights, and the mention of no laws to be placed which contradict Islam?

by yo Jim! Tue Oct 18, 2005 14:13

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A sandstorm that had closed Baghdad's airport cleared Tuesday, allowing officials to resume flying ballot boxes to the capital Tuesday so "unusually high" vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces can be checked by election officials.

The investigation by Iraq's election commission has raised the possibility that the results of the referendum could be called into question. As many as 99 percent of the voters reportedly approved Iraq's draft constitution in some of the provinces being investigated.

by yo Jim! Tue Oct 18, 2005 14:30

What’s truly eyebrow-raising is that the number of constitutional “yes” votes — 326,774 — is more than the total increase in votes over January’s turnout. That suggests that not only did all of the Sunnis in Ninevah province, who largely boycotted the January elections turn out, but that they all voted for the constitution. That’s a very strange idea to me, as I’ve not met a single Sunni who voted for it here in Baghdad.

by Babies of the former Yugoslavia Tue Oct 18, 2005 16:45

Jaysus, Sorry Mark, didn't think I was taking up too much space on the information super highway with my two words. Depleted uranium is going to be the single biggest problem for the people of Iraq going forward for the next few centuries. It is used to tip munitions due to the fact that unlike other metals like tungsten, it actually sharpens as it moves through the armour plating of enemy tanks. In the process, it is turned to dust, and the problem is..
How does one remove this material from a desert? Kids are playing with spent shells, and overall the incidence of childhood leukaemia and birth deformities has increased massively. It is also allegedly responsible for some of the symptoms being experienced by American soldiers after they have returned from tours of duty. It is a by product of the nuclear industry, and is classified as being a relatively harmless substance by the US military.
It was also used by US forces during their brief campaign against Slobodan Milosovic in the Balkans, and incidences of the diseases mentioned above are also on the increase. It is low level, indescriminate nuclear war, and will ruin the environment in these areas for hundreds if not thousands of years. The point I'm trying to make is that although Jim has said that the war has been utterly vindicated, the use of such ordnance by the US military was despicable, and nothing can ever vindicate the destroying of the lives of thousands of Iraqi (and serbian/bosnian) kids, both living, dead and yet to be born. War is always wrong. Fight war, not wars. Please follow the link below for further information. Will that do? Do I get a pass? I thought by placing these two words on the comment page that anyone, like yourself who was wondering what the story was could google it. Saves me time, but shur anyway, there you go boss.

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

by Maubere Tue Oct 18, 2005 18:45

Jim, Noel,
If GW wanted to bring democrcy to Iraq why did he want to appoint the group that was going to write the constitution???

They only had the election in January because Ayaltollah Al Sistani told the Yanks that the ‘appointocracy’ wasn't good enough

The US hoped the Iraqis would elect pro-washington toadies, unfortunately for GW they elected pro-iranian parties

The US has no choice but to allow elections in Iraq or the Shia people will kick their ass like the Sunnis are doing now (altough there are 15m Shias as opposed to 5m sunnis)

If the US wants democracy why did they try to get rid of democratically elected (3 times) Hugo Chavez in Venezuela???

by jim Tue Oct 18, 2005 18:57

EVEN BEFORE Iraq's constitution was ratified, dire predictions were being made that it would pave the way for the creation of an Islamic theocracy. But whatever problems the new constitution poses for the future of Iraq, the role of Islam in the state is not likely to be one of them.

The truth is that despite grumblings from those who wanted a secular, liberal democracy to arise fully formed in the midst of a bloody and chaotic occupation, the constitution of Iraq is nothing short of a miracle.

This is an enlightened charter of laws written in a lawless country embroiled in a civil war, some of whose framers were literally dragged into the streets and beaten to death between meetings. It succeeds at reflecting the values, interests and concerns of an overwhelming majority of a fractious population in a fabricated country that has never known anything resembling genuine democracy.

The most remarkable aspect of Iraq's constitution is the way it balances the religious identity of the people (96% of whom are Muslim) with the requirements of democratic pluralism. Article 2 establishes Islam as "the official religion of the state" and "a basic source of legislation"; no law can be passed that contradicts "the fixed principles of Islam." But the constitution deliberately leaves those fixed principles to be defined by the natural democratic process in accordance with the changing will of the Iraqi people, and it unequivocally states that no law can be passed that contradicts the basic rights and freedoms outlined by the constitution. Among the first of these is that all individuals have a right to freedom of creed, worship, practice, thought and conscience.

Putting such notions in writing does not a democracy make. Still, as the template for a stable, viable, pluralistic and distinctly Islamic democracy, Iraq could not have hoped for a better founding charter.

Of course, there are those for whom the very term "Islamic democracy" is a frightening oxymoron. But an Islamic democracy means neither a theocracy in which the Koran is the sole source of law (as in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan), nor a "theo-democracy" in which the state is run by religious authorities (as in Iran). An Islamic democracy denotes a political system dedicated to pluralism, human rights, constitutionalism, popular sovereignty, the rule of law, the separation of powers — all of the principles that make a society democratic — yet founded upon a distinctly religious moral framework.

This is by no means a new paradigm. Britain maintains an official church whose spiritual head is also the country's sovereign and whose bishops serve in the upper house of Parliament. Israel is founded on an exclusivist Jewish identity and offers all the world's Jews, regardless of nationality, immediate citizenship as well as a host of benefits and privileges not enjoyed by its non-Jewish citizens. And although the United States does not have an established religion, the language with which issues such as abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia are debated in Congress surely indicates that, at the very least, the unapologetically Christian values of the U.S. form a "basic source of legislation," to quote the Iraqi constitution.

All of the above countries are considered democracies not because they are secular but because they are, at least in theory, dedicated to pluralism — that is, the peaceful coexistence and legal equality of different ethnicities, religions and political ideologies. Indeed, a democratic state can be established on any religious framework as long as it is founded on an inviolable respect for pluralism, as we can only hope the new Iraq will be.

Certainly, problems can arise when religion plays a role in the state, and there may be instances in which the rights of individuals will be curtailed by the majority moral values of the state, but that is true of all democracies. Moreover, there will always be groups that will try to use religion to promote their own social and political agendas — for instance in Iraq, those who seek to curtail the rights of women. (The framers have tried to preempt this by allotting at least 25% of the legislative assembly seats to women.)

But whether we like it or not, Islam is going to play a significant role in shaping the democratic development of large parts of the Muslim world. This should not only be viewed as inevitable, it should be welcomed. After all, any democratic state, if it is to be viable and lasting, must reflect the values and traditions of its constituents. The path toward democracy is long and grueling, and Iraqis have only just embarked on it.

In 250 years of democracy, the U.S. has still not come to terms with what role religion should play in the state. Perhaps Iraq should be allowed a few more days before it is judged a failure.

by Barry Tue Oct 18, 2005 19:41

its just the blatant theft of a countrys resources , illegal under international law . Heres what these dumbass yank f***wits are all about when it comes to invading other countries . This is what legitimises the war on the Iraqi people . Whose next ?

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/3029/CNNNN_On_The_Streets_Of_America_2.html

by Jim Wed Oct 19, 2005 15:06

They chosw between two alternatives.

1. A police state run by authoratic oligarchs using systematic terror to crush political religious and ethnic groups deny them their basic human rights - an Orwellian world were history has ended and a boot stamps in their faces forever.

2. A pluralist democratic state ruled by politicians of the people, elected by the people and for the people garanteeing their human rights and freedom and their religious ethnic and political identity.

In other words
- Barbarism or Civilisation.

The people of Iraq chose no.2

Why not be happy for them huh?

by Mark C - Teacher Wed Oct 19, 2005 15:10

I don't remember the Iraqi people voting to be invaded. They never voted for number 2 and have not received it either.

Mark.

by jayzus! Wed Oct 19, 2005 15:23

Jim sez:
'In 250 years of democracy, the U.S. has still not come to terms with what role religion should play in the state.'

250 years of democracy?
Ummm where does this number come from?
(i wont even bother debating if the USA was a democracy in its early days)

Assuming American 'democracy' started in 1776
2005 - 1776 = 229 years

or
American independence was recognised in 1783
2005 - 1783 = 222 years

or
American Constitution effective in 1789
2005 - 1789 = 216 years

sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Jim, please explain.

by stop this war Thu Oct 20, 2005 14:18

Nixon's Vietnam-Era Defense Chief Calls for Iraq Exit Plan

The defense secretary who served under President Richard M. Nixon during the Vietnam War is warning that the United States is repeating in Iraq some of the mistakes that led to public disillusionment and ultimate defeat in Vietnam, including the impression that there is no clear goal for victory or a detailed, well-described plan to bring US troops home.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1019-01.htm

----

US Republican Congressman wants new Able Danger probe

A vocal House Republican is calling for a new probe into what he says is a "witch-hunt" by defense officials against a Sept. 11 intelligence whistleblower.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., told United Press International that officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, had "conducted a deliberate campaign of character assassination" against the whistleblower, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

Shaffer has said that a highly classified Pentagon data-mining project he worked on, codenamed Able Danger, identified the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terror attacks as linked to al-Qaida more than a year before they hijacked four planes and crashed them, killing nearly 3,000 people.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051019-040108-6365r

----

Cheney 'cabal' hijacked US foreign policy

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

by cough cough Fri Oct 21, 2005 14:27

Us style referendums is it Jim?
Show trials and bombs.
wars and orphans.
http://unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=33&si=1491114&issue_id=13158

but how do you rig a secret ballot where everyone's thumb is inked?

by coyote Sat Oct 22, 2005 19:37

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

Martin Luther King: Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence