9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 12:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are confusing the term Sectarian with the term 'secular,' Ican. They don't meant the same thing.

Cycloptichorn

As you know, we have been debating this post by you:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The US has always been a secular nation; there is no established religion in America, there never will be, and while our laws may have sprung from the English traditions which are in part rooted in Christianity, they do not derive their authority from any particular religion. Decisions will never be made by our government based on religious purposes. No amount of disagreement on your part will ever change this.


Shocked Oh my, I erred. I only mis-typed this:

Quote:
The issue I'm debating with Cyclo is whether the USA government is or has always been sectarian. I say NO: the USA has not been and is not now sectarian. The USA government has always been prevented by the 1st Amendment from dictating religion, AND has never been indifferent to ,or rejected, or excluded religion and religious considerations.



CORRECTION

ican711nm wrote:
The issue I'm debating with Cyclo is whether the USA government is or has always been secular. I say NO: the USA has not been and is not now secular. The USA government has always been prevented by the 1st Amendment from dictating religion, AND has never been indifferent to ,or rejected, or excluded religion and religious considerations.


sectarian adj. = "1: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian 2: limited in character or scope""

sectarian noun = "1: an adherent of a sect 2: a narrow or bigoted person"

Aha! Eureka! Laughing

You wrote: "A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive liberalizing trend."

That would have been more accurate if you had stated: A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive sectarian liberalizing trend."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 12:21 pm
Liberalizing trends are the opposite of narrow, bigoted views, Ican. I'd love to crush you if you wish to debate this.

cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 12:23 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I invite you sir to debate, for you shall lose. A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive liberalizing trend. It will continue, despite the wailing and gnashing of those who cannot abide the thought of people acting in indecent ways.

Cycloptichorn

What is it you wish me to debate?

I agree that: "A close examination of the history of America will show a steady and pervasive liberalizing [i.e., permissive] trend. It will continue, despite the wailing and gnashing of those who cannot abide the thought of people acting in indecent ways."

History also informs us that the samething happened in other republics that eventually failed. If that trend is not reversed, our republic will fail too.

Want me debate that? Confused


What made you think that our republic was ever not going to fail? All things pass in time. I doubt that it is the permissiveness of the society which leads to this.

It has been permnissiveness that has accelerated these past failures. It's not rational to knowingly do that.

Specifically, what sort of permissiveness in our society do you wish to debate? The right of Gays to enjoy their lives as well as straight folk? Inter-racial marriages? The right to have a kid out of wedlock? Or is this just a catch-all phrase for yelling at liberals.

Ok! I'll debate several! First, let's debate permitting our government to steal from the few who have more and giving it to the many who have less.

I'll be back later.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 01:11 pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0727/p01s01-wome.htm

Quote:
Iraqi government in deepest crisis

US and Iraqi officials are trying to prevent complete disintegration.
By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Baghdad

Iraq is in the throes of its worst political crisis since the fall of Saddam Hussein with the new democratic system, based on national consensus among its ethnic and sectarian groups, appearing dangerously close to collapsing, say several politicians and analysts.

This has brought paralysis to governmental institutions and has left parliament unable to make headway on 18 benchmarks Washington is using to measure progress in Iraq, including legislation on oil revenue sharing and reforming security forces.

And the disconnect between Baghdad and Washington over the urgency for solutions is growing. The Iraqi parliament is set for an August vacation as the Bush administration faces pressure to show progress in time for a September report to Congress.

At the moment, Iraqi politicians are simply trying to keep the government from disintegrating. On Friday, top Iraqi officials were set to convene in the Kurdish north for a crisis summit, in the hopes that talks held outside of Baghdad's politically poisonous atmosphere may bring some resolution to the current political standstill. President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, were set to meet at the Salaheddin summer resort at the end of a difficult week.

On Wednesday, the Iraqi Accordance Front said it pulled out of Mr. Maliki's coalition government, but would return its six cabinet members if the prime minister met a list of demands. The Sunni bloc says it wants, among other things, pardons for detainees not facing specific criminal charges and for all militias to be disbanded.

"We are frankly in the midst of the worst crisis," says Fakhri Karim, a close adviser to Messrs. Barzani and Talabani who also publishes the independent Al Mada newspaper. He says he doubts the Friday meeting will find any resolution because of the new political tussle with the Iraqi Accordance Front.

"Most of the political blocs have failed to operate within the framework of national consensus. They can't even properly formulate their positions and proposals, let alone realize the very serious dangers that surround everyone."

The gravity of the situation was underscored by several officials. "We have a governmental crisis. Our people expect better performance," said Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

And since Saturday, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been shuttling between Iraq's top leaders, but an embassy spokesperson said this was not necessarily indicative of a crisis.

"The surge has done well in making a difference in security conditions. But it isn't a light switch for reconciliation; there are no quick fixes to years of bitterness and violence," he said.

Some US military officers have expressed concern privately that Iraq's leadership has failed to take advantage of some of the breathing room offered by the US-led surge against insurgents and militants.

The crisis is also fueling discontent and alienation among Iraqis.

"They are making us regret we ever voted for them ... they should learn something about unity from our soccer team," said an anonymous caller on a state television program on Wednesday after Iraq's victory over South Korea in the Asian Cup semifinals.

Iraq's two rounds of elections in 2005 were historic in many ways. They empowered once-marginalized Shiites and Kurds, but the experience also enshrined and even codified in the new Constitution a consensus-based system that is built on a delicate division of authority along sectarian and ethnic lines.

This was meant mainly to accommodate the embittered Sunni Arabs who were slow to embrace the political process and continue to fuel a violent insurgency that has spiraled into a bloody sectarian war.

But 14 months after Maliki, a Shiite, formed his so-called government of national unity, Iraq's quest for democracy has hit a wall. Political leaders, mainly Shiites and Sunnis, are now trading a barrage of very serious recriminations.

"The partnership experience has been dealt major blows ... we tried to maintain our good intentions and patience ... but we have been faced with arrogance, a monopoly over power, and efforts to eliminate [us] in every way," said Khalaf al-Olayan from the Iraqi Accordance Front at a press conference announcing the suspension of six cabinet members from the government.

If they pull out, it would bring to 12 the number of vacancies in Maliki's 39-member cabinet.

"We are firmly convinced after this bitter experience that this government represented by its prime minister is incapable of joining a truly patriotic project," added Mr. Olayan, surrounded by Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and the front's other leaders.

He said the pullout would become finalized in a week unless Maliki showed willingness to fulfill a list of 12 conditions that boil down to releasing thousands of detainees held in US and Iraqi prisons without charges, ending what the front considers the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis.

Sami al-Askari, a parliamentarian and close adviser to Maliki, said all the accusations and demands by the Sunni bloc are merely a smoke screen for one thing: "Hashemi's desire for more powers than what has been accorded to him under the Constitution."

Mr. Askari accused the Sunni bloc of operating from the get-go more like opposition than a partner. Maliki and his Shiite allies have repeatedly charged that the Sunnis want to bring down the government and reverse the current political equation with the help of regional Sunni Arab powers Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Before the withdrawal of the Sunnis from the government, there had been efforts last week to contain the crisis, namely by resuscitating a proposal to create a coalition of so-called moderates to back the government and "isolate the extremists on both sides, Sunnis and Shiites," according to Foreign Minister Zebari.

Robert Springborg, director of the Middle East Institute at the University of London, says the heart of the problem was that no one is truly committed to a strong and unified government.

"The actors involved have their own agendas, the central government and its resources are a tool for their own aspirations ... none are committed to a government for all Iraqis," he says.

Pointing to the growing disconnect between Washington and Baghdad, Askari, Maliki's adviser, says, "Washington believes that passing the oil law will impact on reconciliation and the security situation. We beg to differ. This matters little to the armed groups that kill Iraqis every day. Their sole agenda is to reverse what we have achieved so far."


Not good.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 01:18 pm
The foundation of the 'surge' is the Iraqi gov't....this is definitely not good.

So...lets' take August off.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 01:20 pm
Brand X: The foundation of the 'surge' is the Iraqi gov't....this is definitely not good.

So...lets' take August off.

Excellent idea if our soldiers could take off for the month too!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 01:21 pm
Brand X wrote:
The foundation of the 'surge' is the Iraqi gov't....this is definitely not good.

So...lets' take August off.


Right?

It's worth noting that the Iraqi battalions which are supposed to be the lynchpin of the military aspect of the surge are completely undermanned and unreliable. They certainly won't be able to hold the land after we move out.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 04:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Liberalizing trends are the opposite of narrow, bigoted views, Ican. I'd love to crush you if you wish to debate this.

cycloptichorn

First, let's debate permitting our government to steal from the few who have more and giving it to the many who have less.

This sectarian liberal trend is a narrow, bigoted, and distructive trend. It is also an illegal trend. The US Constitution does not delegate the power to the federal government to take income from some for the purpose of redistibuting it to others. The federal government does this by taxing dollars of higher incomes at a higher rate than it taxes dollars of lower incomes. Then it uses that stolen income to purchase various benefits for those with smaller incomes. Also, since the federal government is not delegated by the Constitution to provide these particular benefits, these benefits are illegal on that account.

This trend is the fastest non-violent way to destroy a republic. Politicians are corrupted by this trend because it provides them a way to buy votes with other people's money for their own re-elections. The public is corrupted by this trend, because it encourages them to live off stolen money rather than money earned in return for honest labor that produces goods and services for purchase by the public.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 04:58 pm
Economic policy Not Equal social permissiveness or social trends. I doubt the Muslims give a damn that we tax the rich at a higher rate then the poor. I'm not interested in getting into a conversation with you about taxes on this thread; can you please stick to the topic?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 06:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Economic policy Not Equal social permissiveness or social trends. I doubt the Muslims give a damn that we tax the rich at a higher rate then the poor. I'm not interested in getting into a conversation with you about taxes on this thread; can you please stick to the topic?

Cycloptichorn

First, "Thou shall not steal" is one of the Ten Commandments which fundamentalist Muslims as well as fundamentalist Christians and Jews respect and honor. I too believe that disobeying this commandment at a governmental level quickly corrupts one's society. This disobedience is being advocated by the cultural left by means of the laws authorizing theft that it advocates.

Second, I too oppose any change to the marriage laws permitting members of the same sex to marry. If two males or two females want to form a legal partnership whose purpose is to care for each other, they don't need any changes in the marriage laws to do that. Other civil laws already permit that.

We already have enough difficulty with heterosexuals dishonoring their marriage contracts, without changing the meaning and primary purpose of marriage so as to dishonor its primary purpose: protect the children born of male and female unions.

D'Souza alleges that the cultural left is encouraging male-female fornication and adultery in Muslim as well as Western countries. If that's true, then that too undermines the primary purpose of marriage.

Fundamentalist Christians and Jews as well as Muslims believe that the preservation of the integrity of marriage is a necessary requirement for preserving civilized human culture and ensuring its continuing evolution.

Third, I too believe honoring the rule of law is a necessary requirement for preserving civilized human culture and its continuing evolution. The cultural left has been undermining the rule of law at least since 1937 when they convinced the Supreme Court to introduce the idea of a "living constitution." What they really mean by that, is the Constitution of the USA can be amended by judicial decision without conforming to the Constitution's Article V specification for how the Constitution may be legally amended.


I have more, but I think these sufficient for debate now.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 06:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It will be interesting to see what Petraeus says in September. I think he's already in Bush's pocket.

Hmmm! I suspect you are afraid things are improving in Iraq and have already decided to slander Petraeus just in case.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 06:52 pm
Some people wouldn't recognize discrimination if it bopped them in the head. What's so "sacred" about marriage?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 06:54 pm
Improving? ROFLMAO They're lucky if they get 2 hours of electricity every day. You ever live in that kind of heat without a fan or refrigerator? Only about 50,000 Iraqis are leaving their country every month. Yeah, sure, there's great improvement - for blind people.

Most people following the news from Iraq knows that their government is a basket case with no potential for improvement. Only your esteemed leader, dummy Bush, continues to support Maliki's government.

The Iraqi military hasn't been ready, will not be ready, and can't be ready for the long-term foreseeable future. Take over their security? You're talking out of your arse. LOL
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 07:49 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It will be interesting to see what Petraeus says in September. I think he's already in Bush's pocket.

Hmmm! I suspect you are afraid things are improving in Iraq and have already decided to slander Petraeus just in case.


Well, maybe there've just been too many people making too many rosy predictions for the last four or five years... Makes people kinda doubt the new rosy predictions, I would say.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 08:21 pm
old Europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It will be interesting to see what Petraeus says in September. I think he's already in Bush's pocket.

Hmmm! I suspect you are afraid things are improving in Iraq and have already decided to slander Petraeus just in case.


Well, maybe there's just been too many people making too many rosy predictions for the last four or five years... Makes people kinda doubt the new rosy predictions, I would say.


Some of us have been afraid from day 1 of Bush's illegal war. After five years of "we're making progress," anyone who still believes this incompetent just doesn't understand death and dying - and all the consequences that goes along with it (increased terrorism around the world) - including the suffering of family and friends of those lost to a stupid war with no progress. Some people never learn from life's hard lessons.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 08:56 am
Quote:


source

I hope he does ask Petraeus to leave just to see if Washington would do it and what if anything would happen if Washington didn't do it.

We shouldn't be there now anyway interfering and taking sides in a country who we supposedly called a sovereign nation with free elections. Let the Iraqis settle it on their own.

I know; then we will hear how bad everything will be if we leave and how al-Qaeda will just get bolder and start to come to America and blow us up. The whole argument is just so much bull crap. I say let us leave and let the chips fall where they may and let us get back to thinking about our selves in our own country.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 09:14 am
USA at odds with the gov't we put in place...they blame us for lack of progress and we blame them....a perfect political scenario.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 09:31 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people wouldn't recognize discrimination if it bopped them in the head. What's so "sacred" about marriage?

Some people wouldn't recognize indiscriminate behavior and its often cruel and/or horrific consequences even when they are its victims.

Healthy monogynus marriages of men and women are necessary for raising moral, rational and productive children, which in turn are necessary for preserving and evolving civilized society.

The more the merrier.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 09:35 am
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people wouldn't recognize discrimination if it bopped them in the head. What's so "sacred" about marriage?

Some people wouldn't recognize indiscriminate behavior and its often cruel and/or horrific consequences even when they are its victims.

Healthy monogamus marriages of men and women are necessary for raising moral, rational and productive children, which in turn are necessary for preserving and evolving civilized society.

The more the merrier.


I disagree completely. I know more then one person who grew up in either a single-parent house, or a same-sex parent house, who turned out to be just fine. Upstanding, really.

This is nothing more than prejudice and bigotry, but it's what I expect from the elder generations.

The funny thing is, you've mentioned 'evolving' society more than one now; but you don't want to admit that it actually has evolved, into something you don't recognize any longer. That doesn't make it bad or wrong in any way.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 09:40 am
revel wrote:

...
I say let us leave and let the chips fall where they may and let us get back to thinking about our selves in our own country.

If we all were really able to think for ourselves we would not be willing for us to leave Iraq before we succeed there--whatever it takes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/19/2014 at 09:11:16