Is US Establishing An Islamic Theocracy In Iraq?

No problem Buz. All I wanted to do was correct the misstatements in your post. I've done that. The record stands. I simply wanted to make it clear that your assertion that Kennedy started our involvement in Vietnam was incorrect and that there is no possible comparision between either the latest Gulf War or the previous Gulf War with Truman's involvement in the Korean Conflict.When you insert misstatements of fact, even if only through ignorance, I would hope you would would like them corrected. Now, the next time someone brings up inaccurate comparisons such as the Vietnam War or comparing the Iraq invasion with Korea, you will be in a position to respond, "That's simply wrong."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here's something nice about April Glaspie Montclair State University

My point was that this war is no more GWB's war than those other wars are wars of those presidents. And btw, you evidently missed my point that it was under the administrations of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson that scores of thousands of our fighters lost their lives in dragged out no win conflicts where they had the wherewithall to win but were denied the victory by the wimpy restrictive policies of their commanders in chief.I'm no ignoramus, bud and I resent your so often tactic of personal insult in your responses. Don't be surprised, and don't go at me for running off if I get sick of it and ignore your posts.AbE to correct "commanders in chief."This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-04-2006 10:32 PM

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Yes, Ambassador Glaspe is a work of ART. Like her Master James Baker, she directly lead Sadaam to think he had full US approval for his invasion of Kuwait. Of course, James Baker is another Texas oil man, lawyer and lobbiest. The significant part of that transcript has to do with who wants the price of oil kept high.She says... That can be done either by controling the oil itself, disrupting the political structure in the area or influencing the overall supply. It's significant that not only are we creating conflict in the area but that the newest pipeline from the area happens to run through Afghanistan, where negotiations with the Taliban were breaking down.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just to let you know, I responded to your post earlier and did not insult you. I agreed in part with some of what you said (including the message you state above) and how you said it.But I did have some disagreements and laid them out plainly. I'd be interested in your response to them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In an earlier topic, Holmes, myself and others discussed the "stupidity by others doesn't justify stupidity by yourself" concept.It just occurred to me, a significant difference between the previous wars (World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and Gulf War I) and Gulf War II. Who started them?Only Gulf War II was started by the U.S.By the way Buz - Which situation do you think is worse for the world, a Sadam led Iraq or an Islamic theocracy led Iraq?MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-05-2006 06:00 AM

My question is this;Is this the first time this has occurred to you?I was making arguments like this before the war even began.

quote:

---

The plus side of the wars is that after the 9/11 wakeup call, our presence in the regions of Iraq and Afganistan has been a needed deterant to militant Islamic expansion in the region and to terrorism here in the states.

---

Buzsaw, how large was the militant Islamic presence in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power?How large is it now?Who was governor of Texas when he invited members of the Taliban to his state and treated them as honored guests?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-05-2006 08:17 AM

quote:

---

Don't forget, the whole nation was missinformed as to the extent of WMDs.

---

Well then, Zhimbo and I, and a bunch of other EvC posters must be political and military geniouses, because we never believed that there was any convincing evidence for WMD.We never thought that they existed, and predicted long before the war began that they would never be found.

Technically Buz is right. The entire nation was misinformed.The key thing to note (for him) is that the entire nation did not simply swallow the misinformation. Many many people were able to determine that they were being fed faulty information by using other information already out there in the world.On top of that many many people were able to move past the faulty information by reasoning that even if true, the argument for war was still not justified. It could not be conducted in a way that would reasonably be able to remove the threat it proposed to eliminate. This appears to be what Buz is discovering now.Does anyone have an estimate of how many were in favor of the war at the time, broken down by belief in information on WMDs/AQConnection? Clearly there was some section of the population that got it right, and the other section (which were slower on the pickup) is trying to act like they figured out something no one else had before. It might be interesting to know what the percentage was for those who got it right... maybe a job/promotion is in order?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The Administration would have never invaded if they believed thier own rationale.You don't put large troop formations in the way of nuclear weapons.

The answer to the question in the title is of course, no. I see you say it is yes, but list no reasons as to why you have to come to that conclusion. While the Iraq constitution has verbage in there of God and religion, so does the US constitution. I will now list reasons why the answer is no. Constitution of Iraq - WikipediaFrom chapter 1: This will pretty much shut any argument down about Iraq being an Arab theocracy. It is a representative republic. Mullah's cannot come to power just because they have spiritual authority. They must be voted in by the poeple.Freedom of religion is also a fact that rebutts Iraq being an Islamic Theocracy. They are basing their laws on Islamic law, much like the US based its laws on Christain law. Yes really, the Sunnis ruled Iraq. You speak of this in the past tense like it has already happened. It has not, except for maybe in your mind.

---

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

You are right.I was treating buz's "the whole nation was misinformed" as equivalent to another one of his frequent sentiments, "the whole nation believed the administration when it said that Iraq ha vWMD.

quote:

---

They are basing their laws on Islamic law, much like the US based its laws on Christain law.

---

But the US didn't base it's constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, on Christian law.What part of "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me" can be reconciled with a secular government that is areligious, and also with freedom of religion?Last I checked, nobody in the US is requirred by law to be christian, nor follow any exclusively Christian tenets.Doesn't that go against the very first commandment?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-05-2006 02:20 PM

Iraq is still in the process of becoming a Nation. Right now it is still an occupied territory in a state of disarry. It does have a Constitution and is in the process of creating a government, but no one knows what the final outcome will be.Over the next quarter century or so we'll find out whether or not Iraq becomes a Theocracy. They can be democratic-republics as well you know, Israel is a good example.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion