Iraq Constitution : Ratified

My sympathy lies with the Iraqis and I think they have the right to resist Bush's occupation. If the boot were on the other foot and a foreign government had interfered in the politics of my own country and imposed a puppet regime, I wouldn't go along with it.
But as I said before, what we need is another Nikita Krushchev. When Mr K openly called Kennedy "weak" I wonder how he would have addressed Blair?As for Bush, I doubt he would have gotten anywhere near Iraq if the old Bolshevik regime was still in place today.
People such as Blair, I think, understand force and strength (not the speeches of European diplomats) since Blair is simply a bully who hangs on Bush's coat tails. And Bush is simply a greedy oil tycoon whose motivation boils down to short term profit.
So, yes, it's a pity there are no more Mr K's to bang their fist at the U.N.

limerickman said:

The 1.00pm News says that the votes counted in the Iraqi Constitution Referendum have been counted and that the Iraqi people have decided to endorse the Constitution.

I haven't seen the numbers, but I would expect that the Shia and Kurds both endorsed the Constitution with a sizable Sunni vote opposing. (The Sunni vote
isn't big enough in itself to see the rejection of the Constitution).

The only issue now appears to be : will Iraq be a Federation with the Kurds and Shia controlling oil production in the North and South respectively, or will
Iraq disintegrate as a country in to three separate entities >

Either way, my gut tells me that things are going to get a whole lot worse now.

Carrera said:

My sympathy lies with the Iraqis and I think they have the right to resist Bush's occupation. If the boot were on the other foot and a foreign government had interfered in the politics of my own country and imposed a puppet regime, I wouldn't go along with it.
But as I said before, what we need is another Nikita Krushchev. When Mr K openly called Kennedy "weak" I wonder how he would have addressed Blair?As for Bush, I doubt he would have gotten anywhere near Iraq if the old Bolshevik regime was still in place today.
People such as Blair, I think, understand force and strength (not the speeches of European diplomats) since Blair is simply a bully who hangs on Bush's coat tails. And Bush is simply a greedy oil tycoon whose motivation boils down to short term profit.
So, yes, it's a pity there are no more Mr K's to bang their fist at the U.N.

Wasn't it Ol' Nikita that crushed the Hungarian revolution in 1956? If the old bolshevik regime was still in power the eastern european countries would still be under the control of the USSR. Ask the Hungarians how they feel about Nikita's interference in their politics.

But we need a strong leader. Bush has made a total hash of Middle Eastern stability and Europe has failed to take a tough enough line. Europe has been too lazy over arms and the military and has suffered a corresponding lack of political clout. But, to my mind, they should have threatened sanctions against the Bush regime if he invaded Iraq against international law.
Failure to take this strong line has resulted in the breakdown of a Middle Eastern country and mass recruitment of terrorists.
I believe Krushechev in his day would have armed Iraq and prevented any invasion.

Colorado Ryder said:

Wasn't it Ol' Nikita that crushed the Hungarian revolution in 1956? If the old bolshevik regime was still in power the eastern european countries would still be under the control of the USSR. Ask the Hungarians how they feel about Nikita's interference in their politics.

Carrera said:

But we need a strong leader. Bush has made a total hash of Middle Eastern stability and Europe has failed to take a tough enough line. Europe has been too lazy over arms and the military and has suffered a corresponding lack of political clout. But, to my mind, they should have threatened sanctions against the Bush regime if he invaded Iraq against international law.
Failure to take this strong line has resulted in the breakdown of a Middle Eastern country and mass recruitment of terrorists.
I believe Krushechev in his day would have armed Iraq and prevented any invasion.

You want a strong leader and the best you could come up with is Krushechev?
He would have prevented an Iraq invasion but would run roughshod over Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

O.K. but this is a subjective difference. Was Gorbachev's approach better for Russia long term or did Krushchel leave the USSR intact when he was retired?
You may recall that just as things were getting out of control, The K.P. hardliners staged a coup to prevent the disintegration of the USSR but it was too late.
Gorbachev weakened Russia considerably and indirectly brought about the Chechnyan crisis and resulting instabilities. This allowed Bush Senior and Junior to attack Iraq and plunder the oil in the region, an event the former Bolshevik regime had predicted and would have opposed.
The USSR under Krushchev was a force to be reckoned with. There would have been no Beslan under Krushchev and more stability in the Middle East since Bush wouldn't have dared invade Iraq.
I studied in Russia during the communist era and (like most East Germans) liked how things were back then. The education system was better than in western Europe, sports facilties were excellent and people lived quite well, even if living standards were simpler.

Colorado Ryder said:

You want a strong leader and the best you could come up with is Krushechev?
He would have prevented an Iraq invasion but would run roughshod over Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Carrera said:

O.K. but this is a subjective difference. Was Gorbachev's approach better for Russia long term or did Krushchel leave the USSR intact when he was retired?
You may recall that just as things were getting out of control, The K.P. hardliners staged a coup to prevent the disintegration of the USSR but it was too late.
Gorbachev weakened Russia considerably and indirectly brought about the Chechnyan crisis and resulting instabilities. This allowed Bush Senior and Junior to attack Iraq and plunder the oil in the region, an event the former Bolshevik regime had predicted and would have opposed.
The USSR under Krushchev was a force to be reckoned with. There would have been no Beslan under Krushchev and more stability in the Middle East since Bush wouldn't have dared invade Iraq.
I studied in Russia during the communist era and (like most East Germans) liked how things were back then. The education system was better than in western Europe, sports facilties were excellent and people lived quite well, even if living standards were simpler.

Stability in the Mideast while the USSR existed? I guess that Afghanistan adventure doesn't count in your mind.
Bush senior invaded Iraq? I may be wrong but didn't Iraq invade and occupy Kuwait around the same time?

I think Afghanistan and Vietnam would indicate that imperialistic, politically motivated wars carry heavy costs. So, I think Afghanistan and Iraq have a lot in common. In fact, while all the media were applauding the preliminary Iraqi invasion as a cakewalk, mine was the quiet voice that pointed out how easily Soviet troops rolled into Afghanistan.
The casulaties came later on, as did the expense for the war. This applies to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, mistakes made by Brezhnev and Stalin don't negate the fact the USSR had many successes. Gymnastics, space technology, military equipment, sports and culture all flourished during the Soviet sixties. Clean streets, national pride and hardly any street crime was the norm for Moscow. The Russians refer to all of that these days as "order". The East Germans likewise look back with nostaligia to those times when everything was run by the State and nobody risked being homeless or jobless.
But, yes, on the international stage we could sure use another Krushchev. 🙁

Colorado Ryder said:

Stability in the Mideast while the USSR existed? I guess that Afghanistan adventure doesn't count in your mind.
Bush senior invaded Iraq? I may be wrong but didn't Iraq invade and occupy Kuwait around the same time?

Carrera said:

But we need a strong leader. Bush has made a total hash of Middle Eastern stability and Europe has failed to take a tough enough line. Europe has been too lazy over arms and the military and has suffered a corresponding lack of political clout. But, to my mind, they should have threatened sanctions against the Bush regime if he invaded Iraq against international law.
Failure to take this strong line has resulted in the breakdown of a Middle Eastern country and mass recruitment of terrorists.
I believe Krushechev in his day would have armed Iraq and prevented any invasion.

Just another [censored] post again from Crapera. I thought that the Americans and others funded Sadaam's military defence against the fundamentalism of the dreaded Ayatollah Khomenin from Iraq. Of course, I don't read the history of the world published by the daily mail.

Carrera said:

But, yes, on the international stage we could sure use another Krushchev. 🙁

Tell that to a Russian. And after K thought Kennedy was weak , didn't K get Cuba stuck back in his ass?
I have come to a conclusion...... Either you are making your views on history for the reason to spark controversial posting, OR, you get your info from the philosophy department at a University. But hey.... Castro will be around a few years more. Maybe you could move there and you two could sit around and discuss the "good ole days " of K...

Nope, I researched some of this stuff as far back as 1990. I lived in Russia for a long time as well.
Depends how you view Mr K's policy on Cuba. Certainly if the USSR was around today Cuba wouldn't be the only south American state to defect. I'm aware Chile, Venezuela and Argentina are all quite fed up with Bush and the neo-conservatives. Check out the protests that have taken place against Bush in other parts of South America.
Actually, I think Mr K represents the kind of politician people like Bush understand as opposed to appeasers and diplomats. At the end of the day, as I recall, the Americans removed their bases from Turkey which was why the Russians originally placed missiles on Cuba in the first place. The aggression was inititiated by the Americans, not the Russians. America was threatening Ukraine from bases in Turkey.
So, what I'm saying is we need strong leadership away from the direction Bush ls leading the globe and it doesn't look like such a line will emerge from Europe. I was disappointed the Europeans didn't take a stronger line of protest over the Iraq war, especially in light of the fact France and Russia have been proven right.
As I recall, Europe made the mistake before of appeasing [censored] when he was invading other countries (as Bush is apparently now planning to invade Venezuela). If such appeasement continues, these excursions will continue with Iran and Syria.

wolfix said:

Tell that to a Russian. And after K thought Kennedy was weak , didn't K get Cuba stuck back in his ass?
I have come to a conclusion...... Either you are making your views on history for the reason to spark controversial posting, OR, you get your info from the philosophy department at a University. But hey.... Castro will be around a few years more. Maybe you could move there and you two could sit around and discuss the "good ole days " of K...

Fidel Castor offered teams of medics to go out and help in New Orleans. It was a humanitarian gesture yet Bush knocked it back. 😕

wolfix said:

Tell that to a Russian. And after K thought Kennedy was weak , didn't K get Cuba stuck back in his ass?
I have come to a conclusion...... Either you are making your views on history for the reason to spark controversial posting, OR, you get your info from the philosophy department at a University. But hey.... Castro will be around a few years more. Maybe you could move there and you two could sit around and discuss the "good ole days " of K...

I'm going to buy you a big wooden spoon for Christmas so you can continue to wind us all up.

FredC said:

Just another [censored] post again from Crapera. I thought that the Americans and others funded Sadaam's military defence against the fundamentalism of the dreaded Ayatollah Khomenin from Iraq. Of course, I don't read the history of the world published by the daily mail.

Let's put it another way:
Bush has invaded Iraq under cover of a load of propaganda we all knew simply wasn't true. He now has his fingers stuck in the Venezuelan oil jar and may well be planning to appropriate the oil there.
Now he is slowly looking for a pretext to start a war with Iran and probably Syria.
Now, I can recall another famous party leader who took over Germany in the thirties and adopted similar policies. The said leader invaded Chekoslovakia and each time he invaded, Europe shrugged its shoulders and said, "Well, maybe it will stop here?"
Of course, it didn't stop and I think, in this case, it ain't likely to stope either. Of course, let's hope I'm wrong.
So, leaving Krushchev aside, what do the leaders of other countries suggest is the answer to the problem?

Carrera said:

Let's put it another way:
Bush has invaded Iraq under cover of a load of propaganda we all knew simply wasn't true. He now has his fingers stuck in the Venezuelan oil jar and may well be planning to appropriate the oil there.
Now he is slowly looking for a pretext to start a war with Iran and probably Syria.
Now, I can recall another famous party leader who took over Germany in the thirties and adopted similar policies. The said leader invaded Chekoslovakia and each time he invaded, Europe shrugged its shoulders and said, "Well, maybe it will stop here?"
Of course, it didn't stop and I think, in this case, it ain't likely to stope either. Of course, let's hope I'm wrong.
So, leaving Krushchev aside, what do the leaders of other countries suggest is the answer to the problem?

Where did you learn history? If I recall well from class, France and Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland. They sure as hell didn't shrug it off and were very aware of the danger (I know from my grandparents).

They simply couldn't do [censored] about it at that point, Germany was a military and economic superpower! Just like no country could stop the USA now if they would choose to invade some other country (throwing nukes aside...).

I don't think Bush is even considering invading another country the size of Iran, Syria or Venezuala... Grenada perhaps... He might throw some bombs on Teheran though...

Comparing this situation with WW2 and Bush to [censored] isn't very smart I think...

Carrera said:

Let's put it another way:
Bush has invaded Iraq under cover of a load of propaganda we all knew simply wasn't true. He now has his fingers stuck in the Venezuelan oil jar and may well be planning to appropriate the oil there.
Now he is slowly looking for a pretext to start a war with Iran and probably Syria.
Now, I can recall another famous party leader who took over Germany in the thirties and adopted similar policies. The said leader invaded Chekoslovakia and each time he invaded, Europe shrugged its shoulders and said, "Well, maybe it will stop here?"
Of course, it didn't stop and I think, in this case, it ain't likely to stope either. Of course, let's hope I'm wrong.
So, leaving Krushchev aside, what do the leaders of other countries suggest is the answer to the problem?

WW2----> And the USA wanted to stay out of it. But the Europeans were screaming for our involvment. There is some thought as to Churchill's manipulations to get the USA involved.
I really doubt if Bush has plans to invade anyone. The difference between [censored] and the Iraq situation is that the Iraqi's just ratified a consti and America does not have "occupation" plans. [censored]'s policies were slightly in the opposite directions.

Carrera said:

Let's put it another way:
Bush has invaded Iraq under cover of a load of propaganda we all knew simply wasn't true. He now has his fingers stuck in the Venezuelan oil jar and may well be planning to appropriate the oil there.
Now he is slowly looking for a pretext to start a war with Iran and probably Syria.
Now, I can recall another famous party leader who took over Germany in the thirties and adopted similar policies. The said leader invaded Chekoslovakia and each time he invaded, Europe shrugged its shoulders and said, "Well, maybe it will stop here?"
Of course, it didn't stop and I think, in this case, it ain't likely to stope either. Of course, let's hope I'm wrong.
So, leaving Krushchev aside, what do the leaders of other countries suggest is the answer to the problem?

More un-thought out bull from the muckspreader. It is logistically impossible to invade Iran and Syria because of the land mass involved.

We're not talking about troop invasion at this stage. More than likey it will involve precision bombing and hit and run.
Fred, you need to take a look at history and how these wars develop.
Iraq is presently in the middle of a power struggle between the U.S. and Iran/Syria. Iran and Syria have been apparently supplying many of the roadside bombs that have killed American troops. Rumsfeld, for one, wants to hit Iran for various reasons (the nuclear threat and apparent interference in Iraq).
Also, don't forget the fact Israel won't allow Iran to threaten it with nukes. Not after WW2 and the concentration camps/genocide.
O.K. I take yours and Lim's point. Bush would have a heck of a problem selling a war to the American public. But if there is some kind of provocation or Iran responds to an aerial assault, war would naturally follow on.
60 per cent of Americans would back it, maybe more.

FredC said:

More un-thought out bull from the muckspreader. It is logistically impossible to invade Iran and Syria because of the land mass involved.

O.K., of course, there are differences, as you say. America is a democracy unlike Nazi Germany that was a social democrat dictatorship. Plus, 50 per cent of Americans don't support war in the way it's being resorted to.
However, Bush's track record is pretty worrying. He endorses the use of torture against enemy combatants or suspected terrorists. There are allegations of torture on board U.S. naval vessels, endorsed by Bush and his administration. There have been cases of suspects being transported to Egypt to be tortured on behalf of Bush's intelligence services.
All of this suggests to me something is going very wrong.
The female Italian journalist who was wounded in Iraq when U.S. troops opened fire on her car was likewise highly critical as is Italy as a whole. So, the buck stops with Bush and people are right, I think, to be concerned over these fundamental issues.

wolfix said:

WW2----> And the USA wanted to stay out of it. But the Europeans were screaming for our involvment. There is some thought as to Churchill's manipulations to get the USA involved.
I really doubt if Bush has plans to invade anyone. The difference between [censored] and the Iraq situation is that the Iraqi's just ratified a consti and America does not have "occupation" plans. [censored]'s policies were slightly in the opposite directions.