DON’T READ SPIN, READ FACTS
Julian, Karl… and all the rest of you cattle, stop getting your opinions from the liberal media and read! Go to www.cpa-iraq.org/governemnt/TAL.html and read the working administrative law for the interim authority. Here are some highlights.
The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom, which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all their forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law.
These people, affirming today their respect for international law, especially having been amongst the founders of the United Nations, working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations, have endeavored at the same time to preserve the unity of their homeland in a spirit of fraternity and solidarity in order to draw the features of the future new Iraq, and to establish the mechanisms aiming, amongst other aims, to erase the effects of racist and sectarian policies and practices.
This Law is now established to govern the affairs of Iraq during the transitional period until a duly elected government, operating under a permanent and legitimate constitution achieving full democracy, shall come into being.
Did you know that every third candidate on the ballot had to be a woman, INCLUDING ALL SHIITE PARTIES. That’s right! Even Sistani’s party had to offer women candidates. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A RADICAL MUSLIM PARTY TO YOU?
You should really reall take the time to read the document posted at the web site listed above. Instead of dealing in speculation, you will read how the people of Iraq have decided to begin solving their problems. One key element is the Presidency Council that will now be chosen. This three member council, which by law, will be made up of 1 Shiite, 1 Sunni and 1 Kurd, will have veto power over anything the Assembly decides, requiring a 2/3rds majority to override any veto.
Another important element of “balance” is constitutional radification. In America, a constitutional amendment is a big deal. It requires super-majority approval in both houses of congress, then it must be approved by a super-majority of the states. That requires a lot of concencus to alter the governing document of the nation.
In Iraq, the radification of their constituion will require the same kind of super-majority approval before it can become the law and constitution of the Iraq. That is the great equalizer to counter-balance majority rule. That means the Kurds and the Sunnis will have a voice, and the Shiites, the majority that used to be governed by the minority, will now have thier rightful mjority voice. READ ON, OH NON-BELEIVERS
Day-to-day operation of the Iraqi government is now in the hands of Iraqis. In addition to the Iraqi ministers at the national level, the majority of towns and cities in Iraq have functioning local governments.
Here is how local governemt is being put in place in Iraq. Again, I “plagarized” this from the CPA/TAL web site.
The Baghdad example is illustrative of how local government is being established. In each of Baghdad’s 88 neighborhoods, citizens have freely selected representatives for local governing councils. They, in turn, choose members of 9 District Councils and a 37-member City Council. All told, over 800 democratically selected Council Members are now hard at work serving their fellow citizens. They include Sunnis, Shias, and Christians, Arabs and Kurds— and more than 75 women
GOD BLESS AMERICA! You will NEVER convince me that a single soldier who died in Iraq, died in vain. You steal their honor by trying to do so. You should be celebrating, along with the Iraqi people, that the future is bright and there is no turning back.
Julian Says: February 7th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
You don’t get it Karl. Sistani now thinks he can claim a mandate to ignore the TAL if he doesn’t like the way the constitution is being written. I fear for the Iraqis because when religious extremists gain control, be they Islamists or Christian, true freedom is the first casualty.
Julian Says: February 7th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
And another thing - the “you steal their honor” thing is a load of crap! That’s just a way for you immoral idiots to act righteous when you support stupidity.
Julian Says: February 7th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Buck,
I know many conservatives respect the views of Heritage Foundation Fellow Abraham Miller. He published an interesting piece that you should read. Enjoy
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12901
JD Says: February 8th, 2005 at 1:51 am
I haven’t been here for awhile but not much has changed. One brain dead liberal trying to sell his socio-fascist view of America all the while enjoying it’s benefits. You guys are all alike.
Julian Says: February 8th, 2005 at 3:13 am
Buck,
You know, I cite articles by people like Gen. Hoar (USMC) and Abraham Miller who make many of the same points that I am making. But conservatives have this defense system that just simply declares that any case that you disagree with can be automatically classified as “liberal” (whatever the hell that means). Such a manner of thinking incorporates a psychological defense tactic that impairs your ability to rationally appraise the facts. Essentially, it produces a sort of acquired intellectual retardation. Why are you so-called conservatives (I don’t think you really know what conservative means, in truth) so defensive. The good news is that you are winning. The bad news is that you are fighting with your own imaginations.
Again, if you haven’t read it, I suggest Gen Hoar’s commentary on the war, politics, loyalty, and truth. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0105_Loyalty,00.html
K. Marx Says: February 8th, 2005 at 3:22 am
Which ‘Karl’ is this article in reference to?
admin; I understand the point you try to make by titling the entry “Don’t Read Spin, Read Facts.” Perhaps I am being cynical, but I can’t help but ask what makes the message this coalition puts out any less biased than any other news source? If they’re a coalition, would it reasonable to believe they might present facts in a light that favors their coalition? Not saying their facts aren’t right on–I don’t know that. I’m only asking what, precisely, makes this source better than others?
Further, you did not plagiarize the source because you cited it. Citing (acceptable) and plagiarizing (unacceptable) are two different things.
Anonymous Says: February 8th, 2005 at 4:23 am
J.D. Being called braindead by someone who visits a site call “Laugh at Liberals” is like being called ugly by a frog. From your comment it sounds like you think that America IS the government. I think that America IS the PEOPLE, not the government. I don’t worship politicians or trust them either for that matter. Is that what you mean by socio-fascist? I simply think that it is our responsibility to scrutinize politicians, not sniff their throwns and invite them to trounce us. The government consists of a gang of folks exactly like you and me. They have no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. When politicians start behave in genuinely altruistic ways (e.g. invading countries because their hearts bleed for the oppressed), leopards shed their spots. Nationalism empowers them.
Julian Says: February 12th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Buck, I think K.Marx asked a valid question in post #6. Looks like it’s in the strike zone. Are you going to take a swing at it?
buck Says: February 12th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Dear Julian and Karl,
First let me say how ironic it is to see the statement, “I think Karl Marx asked a valid question…” coming from Julian. To answer Karl’s assertion in comment #6, allow me to present an analogy. If Karl says, “the sky is blue”, and you hear Karl say it, you know exactly what Karl said. Now someone else may say to you, “Karl said the sky is blue”, but you don’t know that Karl actually said it. You’re just taking their word for it. What if they told you, “Karl said the sky had a color issue”? They would be accurate, but is that really what Karl said, factually? No. By the same token, the Coalition Authority which was, in spite of all liberal rhetoric, recognized by the United Nations and the community of nations as the official authority in Iraq stated, in a document published for the exact purpose of clarifying their position, what would happen in the election, why and how? What they said would happen, in spite of all the liberal rhetoric, is exactly what did happen.
You see, that’s the problem with liberals. You wouldn’t know a fact if it landed on your head, because to the majority of your argument, the facts just don’t matter.
How’s that for a stab at it?
K. Marx Says: February 12th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
buck; Using ad hominem and tired cliches seems almost contradictory to the point you make in the using term, “liberal rhetoric.” You would make a more convincing statement if you left out your rhetoric.
So, your belief is that, I am to trust the Coalition Authority as an authority because the UN and the community of nations recognizes them as the official authority in Iraq. That seems fair enough.
But, why am I to trust the UN and community of nations as an expert in judging the authority of that coalition? That is to say, why I am to trust the UN as a body of good judgement when I am told they have not been in recent times? If I am to trust the UN in regard to the coalition, why am I not to trust them in matters directly related to the Iraq war? The UN (and France, Germany, etc.), as I’ve been told, has been the enemy of the United States in the war on terror as they have put a constant liberal spin on things, opposed the war in Iraq because Iraq economically benefited them, etc. Now, all of a sudden, I am supposed to believe they are to be trusted? I’m a bit confused on the matter.
K. Marx Says: February 12th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
I believe there has been some confusion. I have seen posts by a user, “karl”. I am not that user, and that user is not me.
“karl” and “K. Marx” - two different users.
Julian Says: February 12th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Buck,
To set the record straight, I said “K.Marx asked a valid question….” But let me also add, in point of fact, Karl Marx also asked many valid questions and proposed many interesting ideas. You should read them sometime, just for edification. Now, more to the point, you do know about the process involved in setting up to CPA, don’t you. I am refering to the political maneuvering involved, installation of Bush cronnies, and fervent attempts by Bush to avoid one-person-one-vote elections. I’d be happy to come back and do a little tutorial on the process if you wish. But what about that election? Now 13 days after the election and it appears more than ever that Sistani, in spite of the CPAs efforts, has gotten what he wanted. The Shia have an apparent mandate and I predict that from now on they form the government in the manner they wish, the CPA, as bogus as it was in the first place, is now over. To add insult to injury, what about how Chalabi has maneuvered from pumping the administration with bogus WMD intelligence, to sitting beside Laura Bush at the SOTU, to spying for Iran, to have Bush send the Marines after him, Bush saying “piss on Chalabi, stealing $800 million US dollars, and now apparently back into a power position in Iraq and thumbing his nose at Bush. What an interesting sidebar. Bush just can’t find a way to stop his run of catastrophic successes, as he calls them.
Julian Says: February 14th, 2005 at 2:44 am
I don’t know if any of you read the American Conservative. I do. There is an article in tomorrow’s issue that you may find interesting. I’d love to get your interpretations of it. Surely you don’t think that The American Conservative is written by a bunch of liberals, do you? http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
K. Marx Says: February 14th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Julian; Thank you for the link. One can see there is a conflict between the U.S. conservative agenda and the Republican agenda. The Republican party today is moderate in many ways. Some of the present administration’s policies are very liberal, yet the Democrat party dislikes those same liberal agendas. It doesn’t make much sense and confuses me greatly.
Tubaman Says: February 16th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
With regard to “anonymous” 2/8/2005, a person has to be braindead to laugh at liberals?
ConservativeKelli Says: May 15th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
If u are a liberal, why would u come 2 a website called “laughatliberals.com”?
Anna Says: May 17th, 2005 at 1:11 am
ConservativeKelli,
Regarding #16 - because it’s a target rich environment. Always searching for conservatives who need a good talkin to.