Political Potpourri VIII

reddragon · 2005-08-23 09:49:27

Consequently (and there are legal cases that back this interpretation) it permits weapons of military value.

Can I get a tank for self-defense? How about an ICBM?

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-23 09:59:58

Can I get a tank for self-defense? How about an ICBM?

For a tank, I really don't object. I'm kind of in the market for a tank myself.

An ICBM can't be used defensively, strictly speaking. It's not an arm that an individual can bear. It's not a battlefiled weapon. An ICBM is purely a weapon of attack. You can retaliate with it, but you can't defend.

It's a matter of precision and whether the individual can make proper use of the weapon. A gun is precise, a bomb is not.

clark · 2005-08-23 10:47:17

It's a matter of precision and whether the individual can make proper use of the weapon. A gun is precise, a bomb is not.

Depends on who and how many you are defending yourself from.

And no, I am not paranoid.

BWhite · 2005-08-23 14:22:51

Roadmap to partition?

Look at the oil revenue provisions and the ability of regional governments to raise security forces that will be loyal to the regional government. Iran now stands poised to be the BIG WINNER from our removal of Saddam.

= = =

And this:

As Shiites and Kurds presented the draft to the National Assembly, Sunnis bitterly opposed to its federal structure talked of "betrayal" and warned of a violent backlash.
The constitution is the principal plank of President George W. Bush's exit strategy from the Iraq conflict, which has made his popularity among American voters plummet.
US diplomats, led by the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been frantically lobbying for it to be adopted before yesterday's deadline. But far from sealing Iraq's post-Saddam era, the draft appeared to be fast fracturing the fledgling edifice of government, with Shiite and Kurdish parties declaring they were prepared to use their parliamentary majority to push through the document despite Sunni opposition.
The Sunni reaction was immediate, with politicians queuing to denounce the move and warning of a cataclysmic reaction. Soha Allawi, one of the leading negotiators, declared: "We will not be silent. We will campaign for public awareness to tell Sunnis and Shias to reject the constitution, which will lead to the break-up of Iraq and civil war."
Another Sunni delegate, Hussein Shukur al-Fallu, said: "If they pass this constitution, then the rebellion will reach its peak."
Sunni leaders said the text had dropped wording that forbade secession from Iraq; Kurdish parties maintained they do not want to break away entirely but want to keep the option open.

No secession language was dropped from the constitution? Can you spell Kurdistan?

srmeaney · 2005-08-24 05:20:16

What was it that Einstein said about insanity?

He said: "I'm as crazy as the next guy, that Why I have seven of the same suit hanging in my closet and have invented a bigger and better gun."

C M Edwards · 2005-08-24 10:27:03

No secession language was dropped from the constitution? Can you spell Kurdistan?

*shrug* Of the US states that were formerly independent nations and absorbed into the United States of America by treaty, Texas was allowed a clause permitting it to back out of the deal and become an independent nation again. (It wasn't honored when push came to shove, but it was there.)

There is precedent for this, and it doesn't create any more (or less) danger of an independent Kurdistan than there was before a constitution was ratified. That token assuagement could keep Iraq together.

And, well, the Kurds and Shiites can steamroll over the Sunni representatives if they get together. Most of the current Sunni representation in Iraq is by the good graces of the interim government.

srmeaney · 2005-08-24 18:48:50

Kurdistan National Anthem

Oh Kurdistan, My Kurdistan!
Our land is Finally free.

Through the sacrifice of heroes,
We have a future we can see.
Our future is our children,
Saved from certain slavery.

Oh Kurdistan, My Kurdistan!
Our land is Finally free.

And now the great rebuilding
as we dam the Tigris and Euphrates.
For we go to irrigate our Kurdistan,
That our Paradise may be freed.

Oh Kurdistan, My Kurdistan!
Our land is Finally free.

srmeaney · 2005-08-24 22:51:07

http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/salzburg/

Nasty...

Palomar · 2005-08-26 19:56:39

Randy Stufflebeam

*...candidate for Illinois Governor.

And he's my 4th cousin. My mother told me this evening that he's running for Governor.

I've not met him and am just now reading his web page. Totally unfamiliar with the Constitution Party. Hmmm....

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Just read C. Baldwin's "You Might Be a Constitutionalist If..." (linked to Randy's web page). Most is okay. I'm definitely not in agreement with #15, #25 and #19, though.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-27 11:08:24

Randy Stufflebeam
Just read C. Baldwin's "You Might Be a Constitutionalist If..." (linked to Randy's web page). Most is okay. I'm definitely not in agreement with #15, #25 and #19, though.

My list is longer. I'm afraid I'd get a failing grade as a constitutionalist.

Still, it's a neat idea. Perhaps every political party should offer an "agreement test" like that one. That way you could figure out your score for each party - 60% Constitutionalist, 85% Green, etc. Democrats and Republicans might be disappointed by their own scores, though...

Stormrage · 2005-08-27 12:23:48

If Iraq is divided problems will increase.

1: Americans promised Turkey that the Kurds won't get their own land. Inexchange for cooperation. They won't be happy.
2: The sunni (believe it or not) are the most westernised out of all the three groups. They will refuse to have a taliban like government. They won't be happy.
3: The sunni will get the bad area of Iraq. They won't be happy.

Now put all of that together into a nice melting pot and add a bit of the insurgents. We got a civial war. Good going america. Now Iraq is going to end up more screwed then it ever was. The matter will get even worse if the Kurds in Syria and Turkey try to create a Kurdistan of their own.

srmeaney · 2005-08-27 20:23:37

You never know, it might be interesting to sit on a tank outside Turkey and scream "No Prisoners! No Prisoners!" like Laurence of Arabia as your troops roll toward Istanbul using Russian Armor traded for Kudish oil.

Stormrage · 2005-08-28 06:02:42

You never know, it might be interesting to sit on a tank outside Turkey and scream "No Prisoners! No Prisoners!" like Laurence of Arabia as your troops roll toward Istanbul using Russian Armor traded for Kudish oil.

The Oil will be controlled by the shiite. Not the Kurds and the turkish already have an fully trained army. I doubt that kurds with rusting russian tanks be able to get past the turks. If the kurds attack it will give some turks what they always wanted. The opertunity to wipe out all kurds in turkish border.

srmeaney · 2005-08-28 06:07:07

How about a russian army of mercenaries hired out to the republic of Kurdistan by the nation of Russia? They have air support, and Nuclear weapon support as a last defence option.

Stormrage · 2005-08-28 12:18:28

How about a russian army of mercenaries hired out to the republic of Kurdistan by the nation of Russia? They have air support, and Nuclear weapon support as a last defence option.

I doubt the Kurds can afford to pay mercs. They don't controll any oil wealth to my knowledge. They never had any power. Saddam made sure of that. Besides using nukes is the last thing any kurds want. If Turkey gets nuked worldwide support will go to Turkey. Just like the support jews received creating Israeli after WW2.

This can be stopped if America digs it's pocket and pays Turkey to stop attacking the kurds or it will be cheaper to stop those f*cking idiots who are writing the constitution that will split the country. They are signing there own death.

Grypd · 2005-08-28 15:55:12

How about a russian army of mercenaries hired out to the republic of Kurdistan by the nation of Russia? They have air support, and Nuclear weapon support as a last defence option.
I doubt the Kurds can afford to pay mercs. They don't controll any oil wealth to my knowledge. They never had any power. Saddam made sure of that. Besides using nukes is the last thing any kurds want. If Turkey gets nuked worldwide support will go to Turkey. Just like the support jews received creating Israeli after WW2.
This can be stopped if America digs it's pocket and pays Turkey to stop attacking the kurds or it will be cheaper to stop those f*cking idiots who are writing the constitution that will split the country. They are signing there own death.

Actually around the area of Mosul in the Kurdish area is quite a large oil reserve and makes up about 45 to 50% of Iraqs total oil reserves. They also have very good agriculture and large deposits of the mineral chromiun. The problem for the Sunni minority in Iraq is they actually control a very poor economically speaking area of Iraq unlike the Oil rich Shia and Kurds. Even agriculture for the Iraq area is dominated by the Shi'te and Kurds as northern Iraq is quite a reasonable area for agriculture production and the area of the tigris basin in the south is the other.

So for the Sunni it is not such a good situation unless they can keep what is currently Iraq together (frankly a made up state). For the Kurds and Shi'te who where the oppressed under the Sunni Baath party and especially in the Kurdish areas there current independence and wish to do things there own ways makes there desire for a federalist state the dominant thought.

In the referendum we will see the Sunni vote unlike at the last elections and it is likely that this constitution will be shot down. This is bad for us and the USA as this means until the automatic new elections (a consequence of the failed referendum and constitution) and there new negociations for new members of the constitutional forum then the arquements over what the new constitution will look like and when to hold a new referendum. Until this is done there will be a political vacuum and chaos and violence like what we see now. Except the Kurds and the Sh'ite are a lot less likely to be baring the other cheek. We have all the ingredients of a major civil war. In fact we have all the ingredients to start a major war that will pull in a lot of the neighbouring countries.

Imagine a war where the likes of Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey get pulled in. That is the nightmare scenario and one that we in the west have to stop. The only thing that can do this is to keep a large military force in place and to get neutral forces in Iraq into place. This is a strong effective impartial police and Army. The more we can get the country to work again the more we can stop it from disintegrating in a mayhem of blood and terror. Unfortunatly to do this we have to keep the troops in place and that makes them targets and we will have more and more casualties.

[/b]

srmeaney · 2005-08-28 17:24:37

Half of Iraqs Oil sits between the Kurdish Capital of Kirkuk and the Northern city of Mosul (the nice one on the Euphrates with the airbases) and this region is majority Kurdish. All they would require is for the nation of Iraq to fail. Turkey would immediatly engage without American approval (putting the USA and Europe in a difficult Position). Russia Comes to the aid of a persecuted people, nukes Istanbul, and secures a corridor of land (eastern Turkey-occupied Kurdistan-but who cares) all the way to the black sea oil ports and gets access to badly needed oil for the russian economy. It provides a situation by which Kurdistan could become a client state of Russia - the way South Korea is a client state of the USA.

If America went to the aid of an 'evil regime' like Turkey, against these Kurdish people, they would have no moral high ground from which to further justify a war on terrorism.

That little expedition would be over. "USA Participates in Kurdish Genocide!" would be on the front page of every Newspaper on the planet.

Stormrage · 2005-08-29 09:55:56

Half of Iraqs Oil sits between the Kurdish Capital of Kirkuk and the Northern city of Mosul (the nice one on the Euphrates with the airbases) and this region is majority Kurdish. All they would require is for the nation of Iraq to fail. Turkey would immediatly engage without American approval (putting the USA and Europe in a difficult Position). Russia Comes to the aid of a persecuted people, nukes Istanbul, and secures a corridor of land (eastern Turkey-occupied Kurdistan-but who cares) all the way to the black sea oil ports and gets access to badly needed oil for the russian economy. It provides a situation by which Kurdistan could become a client state of Russia - the way South Korea is a client state of the USA.
If America went to the aid of an 'evil regime' like Turkey, against these Kurdish people, they would have no moral high ground from which to further justify a war on terrorism.
That little expedition would be over. "USA Participates in Kurdish Genocide!" would be on the front page of every Newspaper on the planet.

What makes you think Russia will be involved in this? There army sucks. They are under funded and their tanks are rusting. They wouldn't dare to nuke Turkey for all of thats worth. That will either trigger a nuclear war or a International war against Russia. Since China and Russia are friends they might join making the situation more sticker.

The one country that can not get involved in all of this is Syria. Unfortuntaly part of the so called "Kurdistan" (which is just a dream) lies in there. If the kurds get it in their minds that there so called country can exist they might try to annex parts of Syria which will them fight the kurds. If Israeli keep their nose out then Northen Iraq will be devastated and america can't do anything because it is legal. The kurdish refugee will go to Turkey and south iraq.

The funny thing is that this is Osama Bin Laden's worst nightmares. Muslims fighting each other.

So for the Sunni it is not such a good situation unless they can keep what is currently Iraq together (frankly a made up state).

Half the countries in this world have been made up. Hell no country in Africa existed in their current form before the British came. Syria,Israeli,Saudi Arabia,Pakistan and countless others came to existant because of colonising countries splitting land between each other.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-29 12:11:43

The funny thing is that this is Osama Bin Laden's worst nightmares. Muslims fighting each other.

LOL! He's sure got a funny way of showing it!

I have another scenario for the future of Iraq:

The Iraqi constitution passes because it serves and is supported by the two largest cultural groups in the country. It's infamous "succession clause" turns out to be functionally meaningless, and the kurdish states - already the most economically stable and sitting on a fine oil reserve - become the economic powerhouse of the country. The shiites play along because they are allowed a legal existence partly independent of secular law (courtesy of the successfully ratified constitution) and are now economically well off again for the first time since Sadaam came to power. And the sunnis get the political leftovers, because they refused to come to the table when constitutional concessions were being served.

The shiites and kurds come out of it with a country, and the sunnis come out too weak to do anything about it.

Sunni led terrorism in Iraq continues, but so does Iraq.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it wouldn't be part of Turkey or Iran, either.

BWhite · 2005-08-29 13:51:20

The funny thing is that this is Osama Bin Laden's worst nightmares. Muslims fighting each other.
LOL! He's sure got a funny way of showing it!
I have another scenario for the future of Iraq:
The Iraqi constitution passes because it serves and is supported by the two largest cultural groups in the country. It's infamous "succession clause" turns out to be functionally meaningless, and the kurdish states - already the most economically stable and sitting on a fine oil reserve - become the economic powerhouse of the country. The shiites play along because they are allowed a legal existence partly independent of secular law (courtesy of the successfully ratified constitution) and are now economically well off again for the first time since Sadaam came to power. And the sunnis get the political leftovers, because they refused to come to the table when constitutional concessions were being served.
The shiites and kurds come out of it with a country, and the sunnis come out too weak to do anything about it.
Sunni led terrorism in Iraq continues, but so does Iraq.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it wouldn't be part of Turkey or Iran, either.

Either this, or partition, may well be the best we can hope for. That said, watch for Turkey and Iran and Syria to balk at a "too successful" Kurdistan.

srmeaney · 2005-08-30 04:26:20

Those genocidal vermin in Turkey, Syria, and Iran might use weapons of mass destruction on them...

C M Edwards · 2005-08-30 08:16:39

That said, watch for Turkey and Iran and Syria to balk at a "too successful" Kurdistan.

Yes, that scenario could lead to a "Kurdish Iraq" just as easily as a "Shiite Iraq" - a "successful Kurdistan" without an actual Kurdistan.

srmeaney · 2005-08-30 16:36:26

Alright Cindy,

I just learned as much as possible about the constitution party. They represent the christian right and have no policies beyond laying seige to the US Federal Government and going it alone against the UN and its member states.

They have no new ideas. A shame realy. America needs a third party to bring Americans back to government participation.

They claim to support the total enforcement of the US constitution, but they wont.

Constitution requires
article 1/section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. That pretty much gives total control to "a congress" (obviously not The Congress). "A Congress" is a gathering of the people (not elected officers, not representatives, not leaders, or corporate executives).

That means that a Congress (in this case) is a gathering of the people of the United States. It also restricts the drafting, design, approval, and enforcement of law to the Congress.

And then they bugger it all by adding article 1/section 2 and restricting access to representatives who meet certain standards. They dont restrict the defenition of the congress, they restrict who can come and participate in it.

This is what you get for cutting participation in the design and implementation phase...

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-31 05:34:39

Constitution requires
article 1/section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. That pretty much gives total control to "a congress" (obviously not The Congress). "A Congress" is a gathering of the people (not elected officers, not representatives, not leaders, or corporate executives).

You'd be right but for the little detail that the rest of Article 1 goes on to define the Congress in question, what composes it, when it meets, how it enacts law etc.

It really is a fairly simple document to follow, means just what it says. No subtle tricks, no hidden meanings, no arcanum needing translation.

::EDIT:: Just read C. Baldwin's "You Might Be a Constitutionalist If..." (linked to Randy's web page). Most is okay. I'm definitely not in agreement with #15, #25 and #19, though.

Just checked it out. As I figured, very conservative and very Christian. Like uber-Republicans. Most of their "you might be a constitutionalist" list I don't find objectionable.

as for the ones Cindy cited:
15: You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.

If we're talking about schools leading prayer, that I oppose. But if a kid wants to pray in school I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. Hell, as an atheist I can confidently say that the Bible is no more ficticious than the average high school history textbook anyway.

19: You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

I don't see a problem here either.

25: You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that in the beginning God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Okay, I see the objection here. No, not the anti-gay reference, I just don't believe that God exists, let alone created anything. Remove the creation angle and the whole statement is meaningless.

And therein lies the real problem with the Constitution Party in my humble opinion, God's word is not the law of the land, the US Constitution is. The Almighty has no jurisdiction here.

BWhite · 2005-08-31 08:55:05

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

Saint Eve simply is St. Eve

What are they talking about?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2005-08-23 09:49:27

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#277 2005-08-23 09:59:58

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#278 2005-08-23 10:47:17

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#279 2005-08-23 14:22:51

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#280 2005-08-24 05:20:16

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#281 2005-08-24 10:27:03

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#282 2005-08-24 18:48:50

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#283 2005-08-24 22:51:07

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#284 2005-08-26 19:56:39

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#285 2005-08-27 11:08:24

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#286 2005-08-27 12:23:48

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#287 2005-08-27 20:23:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#288 2005-08-28 06:02:42

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#289 2005-08-28 06:07:07

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#290 2005-08-28 12:18:28

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#291 2005-08-28 15:55:12

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#292 2005-08-28 17:24:37

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#293 2005-08-29 09:55:56

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#294 2005-08-29 12:11:43

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#295 2005-08-29 13:51:20

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#296 2005-08-30 04:26:20

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#297 2005-08-30 08:16:39

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#298 2005-08-30 16:36:26

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#299 2005-08-31 05:34:39

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#300 2005-08-31 08:55:05

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer