Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FreeArab

  • Rank
  1. Im all for it. What better chance for Iraqi women to get to serve their country, and what better way to utterly piss off all Islamist terrorists who want to come in to Iraq than to see that a machine gun holding WOMAN is blocking his path?
  2. Salim, thanks for clearing it up. It appears I mis-understood. I guess I can agree with the plan of privitization hapenning in phases...as long as privitization happens. My only concern then would be that it does not get completed due to govn beureucracy. I came across some interesting information regarding the crude timetable for Iraqi soverignty. Check it out: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA15703 Here is but a small pasted portion of it: The "Fundamental Law" to be drafted and approved by February 28, 2004. It is intended to provide the legal framework for the future system of government and the protection of basic human rights. It is meant to include: a. Bill of rights (freedom of speech and religion, and a statement of equal rights for all Iraqis). b. Federalist arrangement for Iraq. c. Independence of the judiciary. d. Civil control over the military. f. Timetable for drafting Iraq's permanent constitution by a body directly elected by the Iraqi people. The fundamental law expires on Dec 31st, 2005, at which point a new constitution takes places. I guess during the period from now till the expiration of the fundamental law, bids should be placed on various economic sectors, and sold (or just given) to the highest bidder. This way, by the time Iraq has a working constitution, and the new government takes power, they wont have that much to "own" as nationalised industry, because they would have all been sold to private people/co-orporations by then.
  3. I dont really understand the complete point this person is trying to make, some of what he said did raise some red flags in my head: Under no circumstances, should we nationalise ANYTHING in Iraq. Nationalisation is simply sanctioning artibrary government power, and that is the LAST thing we need in Iraq. Its a slippery slope we need not tread - leave the government in charge of what it does best - protecting the citizenry from non-concensual physical harm - police, military, courts, elections, etc. Nothing more. I think this has to be stressed. Yes, someone who wants to nationalise stuff has good intentions, I do not doubt it, but good intentions in this arena has dire consequences if each step is not calculated first. NO TO NATIONLIASATION. YES TO A SECULAR IRAQ.
  4. George, and what if you are right? Just WHAT exactly is your point - that the world suffers from dictators and its consequences, and so, since no justice is distributed to them, that Iraq must be made to suffer too? 19 hostages get shot by a gunman and one escapes this injustice, but you would rather see that one hostage dead? You're a socialist idiot.
  5. The just thing would have been for those former Soviet bloc countries to have their debt forgiven. They suffered injustice, so Iraq must too?
  6. I have to agree with what all of you are saying for the most part: We need to have a system where it does not MATTER what ethnicity someone coming to political office belongs too. We have to do some research into the concept of "checks and balances" which the early Americans seemed to have pioneered. The whole concept basically said that no matter what type of government you had, there was always that risk that it would get a hold of more and more power, until dictatorship. For emperical evidence, I point to the timeless history of man. Even if someone espouses a "nice" dictatorship where torture for saying the wrong thing involves the muscular undertaker tickling your left foot for hours on end instead of forcing you to eat sulpuric acid ala Saddam, that would still not be the solution - because of the fact that you are being "punished" for saying something "wrong". We have to figure out a way of making this system of checks and balances for our government in Iraq. In fact, we can look at the Americans, and improve where they have failed at. The Americans did "Generation I" of checks and balances, and now us Iraqis can pioneer "Generation II". The Americans clearly fucked up some things like now there is federally MANDATED "affirmative action" or something like this where you HAVE to hire the minority of the week. They dont look at his CV, qualifications and crimial record, just at his skin. What a quick job interview! It seems everytime the Americans get scared, they pass a law! Florida banned smoking in restaurants recently. Not to be outdone, I wonder if California will ban eating in restaurants any time soon. Those silly Americans. Makes you want to pinch their cheeks. But really, the basic question is, "How do you keep the COERCIVE power of government check?" Remember, all a government can do is "make" laws, and push people around. We can utilise this fire to keep us warm and safe....but if this fire gets out of its cage, we have Uday coming into night clubs with his two pet white tigers and mauling the next hot Iraqi girl in a G-string who wont dance with him. In my humble opinion, one way I think is to make it really hard for laws to pass. Laws are nothing but restrictions, and the rule of thumb I think is that the only thing they can restrict is your freedom. Perhaps for a federal law to pass throughout Iraq, it would have to first go through the federal parliament, and then through each parliement of each province, (or at least gain 2/3 rds of provicial agreement). Something along those lines. But they best part of this check and balance system, is that it stops anyone from gaining power - Sunni, Shia, or Kurd, so this way we dotn have to worry about their ethnicity. Checks and balances. Checks and balances. Checks and balances. And for the love of Mohammed, dont involve our deen (religion) in this! Keep it separate from the workings of the country.
  7. Islam is incompatible with the rule of a country. Islam is a religion, and is between a person and god. That is why there must be a strict separation of mosque and state.
  8. Oh - and I forgot to add - I have noticed whenever any sort of question regarding New Iraq's government comes up, almost everyone starts off with: "Well, the sunnis want this, " "the shias want that" "the kurds will do this" blah blah blah blah. And why? I do not even know why there is such interest as to how much hair the next leader of Iraq has on his back due to his ethnicity? Why does it matter? This is why the constitution I crudely outlined above should also be color-blind. Your city of origin, ethnic identity and favourite kurdish singer should have nothing to do with how you are to govern the country. What is there to lament about if we all agree on a p_e_r_s_o_n elected to follow the *constitution*, and do just that? A color-blind government, with a color blind constitution is what we need - so when you look at some candidate for office, look at his CV, accomplishments, criminal history, and qualifications - not at his sunni-like mustache, or kurdish necklace around his neck. No to Iraq becoming an affirmative action sharade!
  9. I saw a picture of the Iraqi Communist party marching in a demonstration from Zeyad's site I think. Two feelings: First feeling: Yay! Because I want to see political parties be able to express their opinion, regardless of how wack their party is. Second feeling: Noo! Because of how wack the communist party is.
  10. Perhaps the feeling is that Saddam was way way up there. Then when they finally caught him, he looked just like an Iraqi village elder. ...and Iraqi Village Elder.... THAT is the image the brain works with from this moment on...so when they say all the frisking being done to this man, it wasnt frisking Saddam...it was frisking an Iraqi Village Elder, who could be anyone - the Coalition has the power to go after anyone it wants, and frisk any unwanting elder. Perhaps it is the fact that this can be done it what is humiliating. I think another theory I would put forward is that everyone associated Saddam's rise to power as maybe, how one Iraqi from squalor came to power, and the rise to power would earn him a "wow" from almost anyone. Then to see this Iraqi chap suddenly come down, almost seems to say "they brought down the best of iraq". ---------------------- Even though I am Arab, and proud of it, I will say this to people who claim that Saddam was an Arab leader. Listen, if Saddam is an example of an Arab leader, by the way he came to power, by his actions, by his convictions and beliefs, ... then I dont want to be Arab! Perhaps we can say this: Saddam was never an Arab.
  11. Why all the Rif Raf about this? Its very simple: Imagine a hostage taker who takes 10 people hostage. He then proceeds to take their money from their wallets, and threatens that if they dont, they die. Then he uses this money, to buy himself a big bomb, and blows up an adjacent building with this bomb. The lucky survivors of this explosion label the hostage taker a war criminal, and depand reparations for all the damages he has done. The next day a sniper takes the hostage taker out, and free the hostages. Who pays for the reparations? ..... the Hostage taker!! Yes, he did use the hostages money, but this was without their consent. They have nothing to do with it. -------------------------- In our case, Saddam had the Iraqi people under his foot, he robbed them, and used that money to fund his military adventure into Kuwait. Now saddam is under arrest. HE is the one who is supposed to pay up. Not one fils should come from the Iraqi people. They didnt sanction Mr Saddam to power, so he did not do anything in their names. To answer your questions: Who should pay reparations: Saddam, and his active Ba-ath cronnies. Simple.
  12. Hi there, Needless to say, I for one am extremely happy at the fall of saddam and his group of thugs..err..."party". hehe. But my elation at his fall, is tempered by fear of what/who is going to replace him. No one wants to see one dictator go down, only to be replaced by another. Here is what I think: First off, I do not mean to split hairs, but "democracy" pure and simple is mob rule. I doubt this is what you want to Iraq - that would mean replacing the arbitrary rule of one person with the arbitrary rule of a group of people. Democracy is when 6 out of 10 people vote to kill the other 4 because they dont like their haircuts. I doubt this is what you really meant though, but I did want to point that out, because Athenian Democracy (it was first tried in ancient Athens) is certainly not what we want! Moving on then, instead of a democracy, where the highest law of the land is dependant on the mob of the week, the highest law in the land must be put in the form of a constitution - etch it in stone if you have to! But this constitution is what would define the New Iraq - in fact I would even add to it that any change to the constitution actually be a breach of sovereinty. (spelling??) In the constitution, we would put the following things, including, but not limited to: 1) Freedom of speech. Being allowed to peacefully protest, talk, write, communicate, regardless of political affiliation, or such. Any and all speech must be allowed, except for inticement to violence maybe. But even that is iffy. 2) Freedom of religion. (speaks for itself). but also very importantly, 3) Freedom to own private property. I cannot stress this enough. A tell-tale sign of an incoming dictatorship is when the government starts to take away your property, like guns for example. A just government has nothing to fear from its populace, whereas one that has ulterior motives for tyranny would try to disarm the polulace, by taking away any form of resistance the populace might use, like guns. (property). Keep Iraqi citizens armed. 4) Presumption of innocence. A person can never be guilty until a fair trial, where he is convicted of being guilty. No arbitrary searches and seizures. Any Iraqi candidate for office will have to take uphold the constitution - and would swear to it. Of course, there has to be the separation of powers to: Executive, Ligistlative, and Judicial. Even the president's exec powers would be limited. I have seen videos of Iraqi police acting like all three branches - Once they apprehend the suspect, they proceed to beat them up meaninglessly, much to the puzzlement of the alleged suspect. The police must be trained to arrest, protect, and thats pretty much it. They are not jury or judge. They are simply the executive branch of government. I am not a big fan of nationalising anything in Iraq either. Let private Iraqi citizens be the ones who expand, develop and sell oil, or any other commodity. The minute the government begins to nationlise stuff, its a slippery slope, with no end in sight. Anyway, I am done venting.
  • Create New...