This Isn't Going to End Well

Remove all ads!

Well, it seems that the Shiites have pushed through a draft of the Constitution. The Kurds are supportive of the document, but the Sunnis are not. It amazes me that the Shiites would do this, as it will likely not be ratified. For the Constitution to be ratified it must be accepted by at least 15 of the 18 different provinces in Iraq. However, 4 of the 18 provinces have Sunni majorities in them, meaning that it appears that this draft of the Constitution is doomed from the start. Is it better to meet a deadline with a flawed document rather than extend it and get something acceptable to all sides?

Some other concerns: 1.) It is stated in the Constitution that the legislature will make no law in opposition to Islam. Theocracy anyone? 2.) I don't see how this can help the situation in Iraq. The Sunnis may well feel (justifiably) disenfranchised by this process and it may turn out that this actually increases violence, not resolve it.

You can read the full article here.

 

Hopefully this is just a stunt to prove that they are actually working on it.

Best case scenario:
They know that it will be voted down, and are in fact counting on it. When it gets rejected, they can set a new deadline and work on a better Constitution that they all can agree with.

Worst case scenario:
They're jockeying for power, and are hoping to slip this one by with gerrymandering (they need two-thirds in each district instead of a simple majority). As Homer would say, "You're all nuts."

 

No, no, no. I think the worst case scenario would be: Carving a new map with 3 new countries, two rich, one poor. Woldn't be the first former Ottoman province that decides to dissolve itself into smaller pieces, instead of staying a federal republic.

 

This is not going to happen. Turks will never tolerate an indepented kurd state in their back and americans, no matter what they have promised to the Kurds, will never agree to something that will lead to a certain turkish military intervention.

[ August 22, 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

Not to mention now you have three problems instead of one. If you split Iraq three ways into Kurd, Shiite and Sunni, now you are only going to futher the divide between the groups instead of bringing them together. Plus, it's not like ALL the Shiites live in one area, or ALL the Sunnis in another area. It will make the Israeli evacuation of settlements look like small potatoes.

 

Yeah, but I do not think that the consequences for the broader region will deter them from trying to pull it through, if they see a hint of a chance for their undertaking to besuccesful. They've been trying in East-Turkey for some time now. For all recarving of maps schemes, now the oppurtinites are there to be taken, however low the chances to succeed are. That's the best chance for them since decades.

That's why I mentioned Yugoslavia.

But anyway, it's been clear from the start (back in the days when it was created), that Iraq can only exist either controlled by a strong central goverment, like the dictatorship they developped, or a federativ state with at least 20 states. A federation with only 3 member-states can not be in Iraq.

 

Regardless of what the Kurds might think about their brothers in Eastern Turkey, chances are that an independent Kurdistan won't exist for long... Basically, several Turkish officials have practically said they'd invade if the Iraqi Kurds get independent.

 

Turkish army has been invading Northern Iraq for many years untill US popped in. The excuse was that the Kurds rebels were hiding there (this is true, most of them live there after all).
But the fear of an autonomous Kurdish state is that it will ignite the rebellion Turkey is trying so many years to erase. And they won't be able to invade in an autonomous state that has oil and therefore will have the eyes of the whole world focused on it.

 

Well you're definitely right about that. There's no way that Turkey wants to see the emergence of a "Kurdistan" or something of the like.

 

US dollars have "in god we trust" written all over; religion has a very important place in American institutions and nobody says that America is a theocracy. What with double standards?

 

I don't think it's a double standard. It's no big secret than many of the Founding Fathers are deeply religious.

A double standard would be if there was an Article in the Constitution that stated: "Congress will make no law in opposition to Christianity" (or whatever religion for that matter).

 

The big difference between Islam, Judaism and Christianism is that the two first religions have a very specific point of view of how the everyday life of a follower must be.

 

Slightly perhaps. It can be understood in various different ways. Perhaps they don't want to be legally obligated to do anything that Islam forbids. Or perhaps they won't everyone on their territory to do as the Quoran says.