Our Troops Must Stay

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

George W. Bush has a more serious problem. He has dangerous Messiah and Messianic complexes.

The general definition of a complex is a phenomena, or a psychological wish, which resides within the person and which does not manifest in him consciously, but nevertheless it affects him and through its power he often behaves unaware of the true inner reason. The Messiah complex is the will, intention, compulsion to be a messiah, to be the redeemer and savior of the world.

But even more dangerous is his Messianic Complex.

A Messianic complex is not just the general wish - be it overt or covert - to redeem the world or to improve the conditions of the world, but it includes another component just as important. The messianic wish is not merely a general wish for improved conditions and for changes for the better, but the wish of that private person to become personally the redeemer of the world.

BBB

One sure sign of drug use is a "messanic personality"! He's properly burned his brain up enough that the damage is permanent. Rumors contend he's back on the bottle.

0 Replies

McG: What do think are the odds that in five years there will NOT be an
Iraqi Islamic Theocracy in place and in charge of at least the Shi'a sectors?

Oh, and next we conjure up whether or not in those same five years the Iranians will actually have the same nuclear weapons as we accused Saddam of having. What say you?

Is that the victory envisioned by Bill Kristol? How about Billy Crystal?

Joe(hmmm my gut is telling me.....)Nation

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern.

This is where Loserman gets it wrong. It isn't a war between the terrorists, insurgents and the Iraqi people, because the Iraqi people don't see it that way.

Iraq could get rid of the terrorists lickety split if the people decided to do so; the problem is that sectarian conflicts are driving the violence as much as anything else, and that sure isn't going to go away any time soon. So the people haven't decided to get rid of the insurgents/terrorists, and probably will never do so, as long as we stay; and why not? They hate us as much as them. This much is obvious from the fact that they do not rise up and police their own state.

Cycloptichorn

Well ****, roll it all back as Cyclo has spoken!

It's obvious that there is something wrong or underlying about the Iraqis if they don't behave like us.

It must be equally obvious that the Jews in German concentration camps must have hated us as much as they hated the Nazis since they didn't "rise up."

I didn't realize that Cyclo has been to Iraq, but his contention that "they hate us as much as them" certainly proves otherwise.

Trust Cyclo who has never been to Iraq over "Loserman" who has the temerity to argue a point with which Cyclo does not agree.

0 Replies

Murtha has been to Iraq and he disagrees with Liberman, I guess people can take their pick.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2235/1/131/source

If in another year after all the elections and everything and there is still as much violence as there is now, will it then be time to admit that our presence is not helping anything? On the other hand if everything is better, can we then say it is ok for our troops to come home? I personally don't think we have any intention of leaving in large numbers or else why have so many permanent bases and a large embassy? I think excuses will always be made to keep a large presence in Iraq. But I hope I am wrong.

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

0 Replies

Conspiracy charges dropped...money laundering charges remain
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4291174,00.html

0 Replies

Well, getting the charges thrown out on technicalities will certainly prove his innocence.

0 Replies

Is that the old, "you can't be convicted of a crime not on the books" technicality?

The judge threw out the conspiracy indictment that was issued by the grand jury that spent 6 months examining evidence. The remaining indictment is one the second grand jury refused to indict on, and the third issued after hearing Ronnie Earle talk for only four hours.

Interesting.

0 Replies

So I assume this means there will be a trial which also means he will not regain his postion in the congress?

0 Replies

That is what it means, dys. And of course, Tommie has some other worries coming down the pike.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

McG: What do think are the odds that in five years there will NOT be an
Iraqi Islamic Theocracy in place and in charge of at least the Shi'a sectors?

Probably not good odds at all. Unless that is what the people of Iraq want. If that is what the people want, then they should be free to make that decision. 3 years ago, they weren't.

They will elect leaders that represent the people. They have a constitution that will not lead to an Islamic theocracy and on the 15th will be electing leaders to represent them.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

They will elect leaders that represent the people. They have a constitution that will not lead to an Islamic theocracy and on the 15th will be electing leaders to represent them.

You are truly hopeless. The "CONSTITUTION" they have ALREADY approved calls for an Islamic Theocracy. It's already there!! Read for goodness sakes, READ!!!! It's right here on the Internet if you will just break down and READ

0 Replies

Stevepax wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
They will elect leaders that represent the people. They have a constitution that will not lead to an Islamic theocracy and on the 15th will be electing leaders to represent them.

You are truly hopeless. The "CONSTITUTION" they have ALREADY approved calls for an Islamic Theocracy. It's already there!! Read for goodness sakes, READ!!!! It's right here on the Internet if you will just break down and READ

Why don't you post the parts of the Iraqi constitution that you believe calls for an Islamic Theocracy?

0 Replies

Well, there's the bit that makes Islamic law the primary basis for secular law in Iraq....

0 Replies

So post it.

0 Replies

Are you saying it isn't there?

0 Replies

Is it such a complicated task to post the parts of the Iraqi Constitution that will allow for an Islamic Theocracy? I figured it would be an easy task the way you are going on about it.

0 Replies

And I'm asking you if you think that we're mistaken.

I've read it before, and posted it on this board before. So I know what I'm talking about.

There's also discussion of appointing Mullahs to Iraq's Supreme Court.

0 Replies

Iraqi Constitution

المادة (2):

Article (2):
اولاً ـ الاسلام دين الدولة الرسمي، وهو مصدر اساس للتشريع:

1. Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
أ ـ لايجوز سن قانون يتعارض مع ثوابت احكام الاسلام.

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.

0 Replies

Full text of the Iraq Constitution
Full text of the Iraq Constitution:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9719734/

I just finished reading the entire new Iraq Constitution. I disappointed in the Constitution. It does not use the simple "no law shall be enacted" with respect to issues they want to prohibit. Instead, they use a "laundry list" to approve those issues they want. This is not the best way to construct a constitution as the laundry list tends to grow longer. If new issues arise or something is forgotten to include, problems arise requiring constant amending.

I didn't find any overt text providing for a Shiite theocracy. However, the preamble is an emotional product that has the following text:

.....so we sought hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to create our new Iraq, the Iraq of the future free from sectarianism, racism, locality complex, discrimination and exclusion.

The preamble implies that Iraq shall be a traditional Islamic theocracy and that non-religious sectarian government will not be tolerated. That appears to be in reaction to the fallen Baathist secular government. Whether or not the preamble will have the full weight of law remains to be seen.

The problem in Iraq is that the Shiite majority population have the votes to amend the constitution at any time. This one person, one vote procedure makes it impossible to predict the future government of Iraq because they always can outvote the minority populations. Thus there exists the possibility of an Iran style Shiite Mullah dominated theocracy.

BBB

0 Replies

In defense of Iran--altogether, a rather indefensible polity--it reverted, after the overthrow of the Anglo-American puppet Shah--to the 1906 constitution. There is no provision in that constitution for a theocratic legislature or executive, and it only allows for the judiciary to give consideration to sharia and the hadith in their deliberations--they are not required to do so. The Imams and Mullahs of Persia secured their continuing influence by "buying" the nationalized petroleum industry, as well as the other successful industries of the nation, which they now control as a corporate body. The subsidiary industries, that is to say those other than petroleum, would not have been such a financial prize, were it not for the American embargo, which assures a thriving market for domestic manufactures.

Basically, the Mullahs of Persia have secured their power economically, not politically. This was very smart of them, because right now, they're not nearly so popular as they were in 1980.

0 Replies

Our Troops Must Stay

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know