The Constitution of Iraq – Is “this” what our soldiers died for?

[rdean]

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

The conservative right has insisted time and again that we “won” in Iraq. Everyone can now enjoy “freedom” without the fear of religious persecution.

A nation’s constitution is a framework for how that nation is governed and provides insight as to what living there would be like.

When looking at a constitution, it’s almost like “first come, first serve”. If there is a “statement” at the beginning and a little farther down, there appears a statement that seems to contradict the first statement; it is generally assumed that the first statement takes precedence.

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Notice “First”: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Then A: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Those are clear. The national religion is “Islam” and the “fundamental source of legislation” and “there can be no law that contradicts Islam”. Then, it goes on to say that no law can contradict democracy can be made. But notice, it doesn’t describe democracy and this is worded in such a way that there is this (false) impression that “Islam” is somehow “democratic”. We know from religion in our own country that religion is the opposite of democracy. Rules are laid out following religious text and NOT voted on.

Then, under C.: No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
Unless, that law contradicts the “established provisions of Islam”. It all goes back to “Islam”.

This is why gays and adulterers are now murdered. 50% of married Americans cheat or have cheated. What if the penalty for adultery in this country were “death”?
A woman now has to be “escorted” if she goes out in public (Islamic law). If a woman has to be “escorted”, can she hold down a job? Visit the doctor’s office? Or even see a “male” doctor? Of course not.

The Christian population has been annihilated since 2003. Are there protections for them? What does “Islam” say about other religions and that is your answer.

Is this what our soldiers died for? Is this the definition of “we won”? Hard questions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Religions:

Muslim 97% (Shia 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

Wow. 97% of Iraqis are Muslims, never saw that coming. Wow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See, without the Constitution they'd still have Islam, now they have a Constitution and Islam.

 

[Sunni Man]

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
.

Nice!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with Islam as a religion

 

[judyd]

The US gave them their freedom to write their own constitution. So apparently it's what they want. But, on the up side, they also wrote in free healthcare for everyone!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The US gave them their freedom to write their own constitution. So apparently it's what they want. But, on the up side, they also wrote in free healthcare for everyone!

The OP agrees with Ann Coulter that we should have converted them all to Christianity

 

[The Rabbi]

The OP would be complaining that the US war threw all the grave diggers out of business because they wouldnt have a steady source of business without Saddam.
Talk about carping.

 

[rdean]

Our soldiers died to create a fundamentalist Islamic government and the right is OK with that? They slaughtered their Christian population from 1.2 to 1.4 MILLION to probably less than 400,000 and that's OK? That's their right? Pointing out that genocide is evil means I have a problem with ISLAM?

Who agrees with Anne Coulter?

You do know that we killed at least 10 times more Iraqi's than Saddam did in his entire life? Right?
Plus, we leveled the country.

Do you guys even read what you wrote? You think you are throwing out barbs, but you are making yourselves look like fools.

 

[rdean]

It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with Islam as a religion

You write as if you think the things you say are intelligent.

If people want "Islam" as a religion, that's fine, but when the US supports shackling a country it claims it's "liberating" by making it a religious theocracy, it's just over he top.

Don't you know the reason people in Iran are rebelling is because they want to get away from the type of government we just installed in Iraq? Just the fact that you don't know that proves you don't know anything.

Now, you will want to come back with another barb, but your others were as sharp as oatmeal.

 

[Chris]

Our soldiers died to create a Shia theocracy allied with Iran.

Is this a great country or what?

 

[rdean]

Our soldiers died to create a Shia theocracy allied with Iran.

Is this a great country or what?

From what Republicans seem to be writing on this board, I believe that was the plan all along.

The reason that Republicans can't seem to understand why supporting the creation of a religious theocracy in Iraq is a bad thing, is because they want to do the same here, but with a Christian theocracy.

They simply don't understand what is wrong with declaring this country a "Christian Nation", making "Christianity" the National Religion and aligning laws with the "10 Commandments".

It's like "heaven". Ask 10 Christians what "heaven" is like and you will get ten different descriptions. Since all of them are imaginary, they would all be exactly correct and equally likely.

But in the "real" world, a theocratic US would no longer be recognized as the United States or a very nice place to live. Republicans Christian conservatives don't believe it.

 

[Article 15]

It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with Islam as a religion

Wrong, asshat.

It's clear that the OP has a fundamental disagreement with state sponsored religion.

And theocracies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraqi shi'ite "democracy" will officially ally with Iran after the U.S. withdraws.

Of course that is what our soldiers died for. Didn't GWB send them there after all? Not Clinton, not the Dems, not Powell, not you or me. The President did, and the blood of those men and women and all of the Iraqi citizens will drag him to the hell of history as the worst Republican President who ever served. Maybe he was even worse than James Buchanan.

 

[mdn2000]

Our soldiers died in the first battle of a long war in the Middle East, a war Bill Clinton led us into.

Shia or Sunni, I say Shia, the Iranian leaders are nuts but the people are pretty good folks for the most part, the Shia deseerve to have access to Iraq, who are the Sunni to deny the Shia this right.

Bush screwed up by not marching our boys into Iran to take out the leadership.

As far as Iraq abusing women, I say we crush them again, and again, and again if that is what it takes, too bad women dont get it, it disgusts me everytime I see women wearing burquas or hijabs, that is why women are abused, the ignorant refuse to recognize that women in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, etc, etc. are forced to wear the hijab or burka or whatever the hell its called, its not a choice, its a demand, and in solitary with the men who abuse little girls women in the western world argue this as a right, even the stupid ass OBAMA calls it a right, not a sign of oppression which is what it is.

Our boys died in a battle, the outcome is far from over, lets see if the first black president can man up and be an american and put an end to the horror that is life in the middle east. I doubt it, Obama did bow to the Saudi's.

How can Obama negotiate with Shia Iranians when Obama bowed to a Wahabbi Sunni?

I would take Shia over Sunni any day and I would take the Jews over the Sunni or Shia.

 

[jreeves]

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

The conservative right has insisted time and again that we “won” in Iraq. Everyone can now enjoy “freedom” without the fear of religious persecution.

A nation’s constitution is a framework for how that nation is governed and provides insight as to what living there would be like.

When looking at a constitution, it’s almost like “first come, first serve”. If there is a “statement” at the beginning and a little farther down, there appears a statement that seems to contradict the first statement; it is generally assumed that the first statement takes precedence.

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Notice “First”: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Then A: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Those are clear. The national religion is “Islam” and the “fundamental source of legislation” and “there can be no law that contradicts Islam”. Then, it goes on to say that no law can contradict democracy can be made. But notice, it doesn’t describe democracy and this is worded in such a way that there is this (false) impression that “Islam” is somehow “democratic”. We know from religion in our own country that religion is the opposite of democracy. Rules are laid out following religious text and NOT voted on.

Then, under C.: No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
Unless, that law contradicts the “established provisions of Islam”. It all goes back to “Islam”.

This is why gays and adulterers are now murdered. 50% of married Americans cheat or have cheated. What if the penalty for adultery in this country were “death”?
A woman now has to be “escorted” if she goes out in public (Islamic law). If a woman has to be “escorted”, can she hold down a job? Visit the doctor’s office? Or even see a “male” doctor? Of course not.

The Christian population has been annihilated since 2003. Are there protections for them? What does “Islam” say about other religions and that is your answer.

Is this what our soldiers died for? Is this the definition of “we won”? Hard questions.

We eliminated a torturing and terror collaborating regime. Islam isn't evil, it is only evil, when some pervert it with radicalism.

 

[theHawk]

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

The conservative right has insisted time and again that we “won” in Iraq. Everyone can now enjoy “freedom” without the fear of religious persecution.

A nation’s constitution is a framework for how that nation is governed and provides insight as to what living there would be like.

When looking at a constitution, it’s almost like “first come, first serve”. If there is a “statement” at the beginning and a little farther down, there appears a statement that seems to contradict the first statement; it is generally assumed that the first statement takes precedence.

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Notice “First”: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Then A: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Those are clear. The national religion is “Islam” and the “fundamental source of legislation” and “there can be no law that contradicts Islam”. Then, it goes on to say that no law can contradict democracy can be made. But notice, it doesn’t describe democracy and this is worded in such a way that there is this (false) impression that “Islam” is somehow “democratic”. We know from religion in our own country that religion is the opposite of democracy. Rules are laid out following religious text and NOT voted on.

Then, under C.: No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
Unless, that law contradicts the “established provisions of Islam”. It all goes back to “Islam”.

This is why gays and adulterers are now murdered. 50% of married Americans cheat or have cheated. What if the penalty for adultery in this country were “death”?
A woman now has to be “escorted” if she goes out in public (Islamic law). If a woman has to be “escorted”, can she hold down a job? Visit the doctor’s office? Or even see a “male” doctor? Of course not.

The Christian population has been annihilated since 2003. Are there protections for them? What does “Islam” say about other religions and that is your answer.

Is this what our soldiers died for? Is this the definition of “we won”? Hard questions.

Once again you start an arguement over the false premise of what you think conservatives believe in.

Our soldiers died from Islamic terrorists, Iraq's constitution has nothing to do with that. Sure, we "won the war" against Saddam's Iraq, but now we are in another war against the Islamic Jihadists. We've had two Presidents unwilling to attack the source of our enemies, namely Iran and Syria, which is why the war has dragged on.

 

[rdean]

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

The conservative right has insisted time and again that we “won” in Iraq. Everyone can now enjoy “freedom” without the fear of religious persecution.

A nation’s constitution is a framework for how that nation is governed and provides insight as to what living there would be like.

When looking at a constitution, it’s almost like “first come, first serve”. If there is a “statement” at the beginning and a little farther down, there appears a statement that seems to contradict the first statement; it is generally assumed that the first statement takes precedence.

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Notice “First”: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Then A: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Those are clear. The national religion is “Islam” and the “fundamental source of legislation” and “there can be no law that contradicts Islam”. Then, it goes on to say that no law can contradict democracy can be made. But notice, it doesn’t describe democracy and this is worded in such a way that there is this (false) impression that “Islam” is somehow “democratic”. We know from religion in our own country that religion is the opposite of democracy. Rules are laid out following religious text and NOT voted on.

Then, under C.: No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
Unless, that law contradicts the “established provisions of Islam”. It all goes back to “Islam”.

This is why gays and adulterers are now murdered. 50% of married Americans cheat or have cheated. What if the penalty for adultery in this country were “death”?
A woman now has to be “escorted” if she goes out in public (Islamic law). If a woman has to be “escorted”, can she hold down a job? Visit the doctor’s office? Or even see a “male” doctor? Of course not.

The Christian population has been annihilated since 2003. Are there protections for them? What does “Islam” say about other religions and that is your answer.

Is this what our soldiers died for? Is this the definition of “we won”? Hard questions.

Once again you start an arguement over the false premise of what you think conservatives believe in.

Our soldiers died from Islamic terrorists, Iraq's constitution has nothing to do with that. Sure, we "won the war" against Saddam's Iraq, but now we are in another war against the Islamic Jihadists. We've had two Presidents unwilling to attack the source of our enemies, namely Iran and Syria, which is why the war has dragged on.

Our people died from right wing religious extremists. Putting the religious in charge of a country will be turning Iraq into Iran. The "source" of our enemies is "religious extremism".

The fact that Iraq has pretty much wiped out it's Christian population pretty much tells us how "tolerant" they are.

 

[CurveLight]

See, without the Constitution they'd still have Islam, now they have a Constitution and Islam.

Lol...dumbest fucking post I've seen in a while. This new Constitution makes iraq an Islamic Theocracy.

 

[CurveLight]

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

The conservative right has insisted time and again that we “won” in Iraq. Everyone can now enjoy “freedom” without the fear of religious persecution.

A nation’s constitution is a framework for how that nation is governed and provides insight as to what living there would be like.

When looking at a constitution, it’s almost like “first come, first serve”. If there is a “statement” at the beginning and a little farther down, there appears a statement that seems to contradict the first statement; it is generally assumed that the first statement takes precedence.

Example, take a look at Article 2, the entire Article:
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Notice “First”: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Then A: No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Those are clear. The national religion is “Islam” and the “fundamental source of legislation” and “there can be no law that contradicts Islam”. Then, it goes on to say that no law can contradict democracy can be made. But notice, it doesn’t describe democracy and this is worded in such a way that there is this (false) impression that “Islam” is somehow “democratic”. We know from religion in our own country that religion is the opposite of democracy. Rules are laid out following religious text and NOT voted on.

Then, under C.: No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established
Unless, that law contradicts the “established provisions of Islam”. It all goes back to “Islam”.

This is why gays and adulterers are now murdered. 50% of married Americans cheat or have cheated. What if the penalty for adultery in this country were “death”?
A woman now has to be “escorted” if she goes out in public (Islamic law). If a woman has to be “escorted”, can she hold down a job? Visit the doctor’s office? Or even see a “male” doctor? Of course not.

The Christian population has been annihilated since 2003. Are there protections for them? What does “Islam” say about other religions and that is your answer.

Is this what our soldiers died for? Is this the definition of “we won”? Hard questions.

Once again you start an arguement over the false premise of what you think conservatives believe in.

Our soldiers died from Islamic terrorists, Iraq's constitution has nothing to do with that. Sure, we "won the war" against Saddam's Iraq, but now we are in another war against the Islamic Jihadists. We've had two Presidents unwilling to attack the source of our enemies, namely Iran and Syria, which is why the war has dragged on.

If Russia invaded and occupied the US would you label all Americans who fought against the occupation as Christian Terrorists?