Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq, the 51st state (More U.S. bashing by the Guardian)
The Guardian ^ | March 19, 2003 | Matthew Engel

Posted on 03/19/2003 3:42:51 AM PST by Norman Arbuthnot

Now that war is finally upon us, we must all hope or (if we share our leaders' piety) pray that, within a matter of days, the thing is done with, the Iraqi people will be free of their oppressor and able to enjoy the benefits of American-style democracy. Here is a brief reprise of some of the changes they can expect if the US decides to give Iraq a facsimile of its own highly regarded system.

1. At present, according to the official website of the Iraqi National Assembly ("a major organ for the expression of democracy") the 250 members are elected by blocs of 50,000 voters throughout the country. This suggests the outline principle is the same as in the US. However, the American constitution demands that the 600,000 inhabitants of its own capital city should not be allowed to take part in this process. The reasons are so obvious that no one can remember what they are, but most of those affected are poor and black, anyway. To ensure true devotion to US principles, the same will have to apply in Iraq; doubtless the Americans will break the news to the people of Baghdad tactfully.

2. In Iraq's last presidential election, Saddam Hussein received 100% of the votes, a fact we know because officials said so. Instead, the Iraqis can expect a choice between two different American electoral models, either (a) the one employed in Florida in 2000, designed to ensure that the candidate with the most support loses, or (b) the modern version, as applied in more advanced states, where people vote on touch-screen computers. No one has yet got 100% of the votes by this method but Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did get 83%. We know this because the company that built the machines - which he part-owns - said so.

3. Under various decrees of the revolutionary command council, capital punishment can be handed out cruelly and whimsically in Iraq for a wide variety of offences. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is reported only by a few outside human rights bodies. This would cease under an American-installed system. Instead, executions would be largely confined to black murderers, most of whom will probably be guilty, accused of murdering whites and too poor to afford a decent lawyer. This will be reported only by a few outside human-rights bodies.

4. Under decree 59 of 1994, Iraqis can lose their right hand for theft of more than 5,000 dinars and their left foot for a second offence. This will presumably be replaced by the three-strikes law, ratified this month by the supreme court, under which Leandro Andrade has been jailed for 50 years for stealing nine videos and Gary Ewing got 25 years to life for the theft of three golf clubs.

5. Any Iraqi journalist thought likely to ask Saddam Hussein a difficult question is now subject to the dictates of paragraph 3. The American way (as seen during the presidential press conference two weeks ago) provides for such people to be stuck at the back of the room and simply not called.

6. Saddam has been universally seen firing his gun indiscriminately and menacingly. Under the second amendment, this right would be extended to everyone.

7. Saddam has conducted unnecessary and aggressive foreign wars to distract his benighted people from domestic economic collapse. Such behaviour would be unthinkable under American democracy.

8. Under Saddam, prisoners are held secretly and without trial, and tortured to extract information. Ditto.

9. The Iraqi system is largely dynastic and a leader like Saddam can pave the way for his son to attain wealth and power without regard to merit. Same again.

10. Saddam "electronically bugged" UN weapons inspectors, President Bush said in his speech on Monday night. The US has not yet tried to refute the Observer story that it bugged private meetings of other security council members. It's probably too busy to dignify it with an answer.

11. Saddam has also threatened his neighbours. A well-placed source in Chile reports that Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, informed the Chilean foreign minister that, if they didn't do as they were told in the security council, their free trade treaty would not be ratified and loans would mysteriously cease. One small example.

12. The National Assembly's system of passing legislation has proved inadequate. Things are different here. When a Georgia congress man slipped in an exemption to organic food labelling rules into a recent bill to protect a firm that gave him a $4,000 campaign donation, it was noticed and criticised. True, the bill was already law before this happened, because no one in Congress had bothered to read it. But the US will ensure that the new legislature cannot be bought secretly for long. At least not that cheaply.

13. There will be no setting fire to oil wells. We need that stuff, dammit.

14. It would be impossible for a war to be conducted solely because one domineering leader forced a cowed and compliant parliament into agreement.

The new Iraq will be nothing like that. It could only happen in Britain.

matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Wow, this piece is so offensive it is almost funny (unintentionally). Even by the standards of the left-wing scum that write for the Guardian this is pretty harsh, although utterly ridiculous.
1 posted on 03/19/2003 3:42:51 AM PST by Norman Arbuthnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Norman Arbuthnot

2 posted on 03/19/2003 3:43:51 AM PST by mhking (How about a NASCAR rolling start?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Arbuthnot
No doubt they believe it.

It can be answered pretty simply though.

How many Americans immigrate to Britain?

How many Brits immigrate to the US?

A simple truth.
3 posted on 03/19/2003 4:18:12 AM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Arbuthnot
Here's the true story regarding Leandro Andrade:

According to the probation officer's presentence
report, Andrade is a longtime heroin addict with
a history of convictions for non-violent offenses.
The report indicates that Andrade was convicted
in 1982 of a misdemeanor theft offense, for
which he served six days in county jail and
received twelve months of probation. In 1983,
Andrade pled guilty in a consolidated
proceeding to three counts of first degree
burglary (residential burglary) in violation of
California Penal Code § 459. In 1988, Andrade
was convicted in federal court of "transportation
of marijuana," a felony. In 1990, Andrade was
convicted in state court for a petty theft offense.
Later that year, he was again convicted in
federal court of another felony charge of
"transportation of marijuana." Finally, in 1991,
Andrade received a parole violation for escape
from federal prison. All told, Andrade had been
convicted of five felonies and two
misdemeanors--all non-violent--prior to his
current convictions.

On November 4, 1995, Andrade exited a
K-Mart store with five videotapes, worth $84.70,
stuffed inside his pants. Two weeks later, he
shoplifted another four videotapes, worth
$68.84, from a different K-Mart store. In both
instances, store personnel stopped Andrade as he
exited the store and recovered the merchandise.
California classifies both of these offenses as
petty theft, a misdemeanor punishable by up to
six months in county jail and up to a $1,000 fine.
Because Andrade had a previous misdemeanor
theft conviction in 1990, however, his shoplifting
offenses were charged as two counts
of petty theft with a prior, pursuant to California
Penal Code § 666. Petty theft with a prior is a
so-called "wobbler" offense, punishable either as
a misdemeanor with up to one year in county jail
or as a felony with up to three years in state
prison. Prosecutors have discretion to charge
petty theft with a prior as either a misdemeanor
or a felony, and the trial court has reviewable
discretion to reduce this charge to a
misdemeanor at the time of sentencing.
In Andrade's case, the prosecutor elected to
charge his two petty thefts with a prior as
felonies, thereby implicating the Three Strikes
law. Andrade's three 1983 burglary convictions
were charged as his first two strikes. His petty
thefts were charged as his third and fourth
strikes.
4 posted on 03/19/2003 4:28:39 AM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Arbuthnot
I say we invade, clear the decks for freedom, and ask the Iraqi people if they want to hold free elections, or be turned over to the Guardian. I'm guessing they would choose the former.
5 posted on 03/19/2003 4:44:52 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Arbuthnot
"In Iraq's last presidential election, Saddam Hussein received 100% of the votes, a fact we know because officials said so. ... No one has yet got 100% of the votes by this method but Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did get 83%. We know this because the company that built the machines - which he part-owns - said so. "

I see the UK Guardian is implying that he is a fraud, yet they 'forgot' to mention the reason why Saddam got his 100%: because if you said no to him, you and your family end up dead.

"This would cease under an American-installed system."

Yes, we should try the socialist version the Chinese use. Happy now?

"Saddam has also threatened his neighbours..."

Yes, threating your neighbors with WMD's or with not giving them loans is the same. Really, the Guardian says so.
6 posted on 03/19/2003 5:21:28 AM PST by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Arbuthnot
This is all so much Leftist blather.

Hell, if the U.S. were truly the Imperialist they claim, Iraq wouldn't be the "51st state," it'd be the 60th!

Why's that? Because if we were truly an "imperialist" nation and not a liberating nation, Iraq would have been preceded by the annexation of Germany, Japan, France, Italy, the Phillipines, Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait!

Oh wait...we LIBERATED those countries and let them determine their own destinies! I guess that should be one big-@ssed CLUE to the Useful Idiots!

(Not that I expect them to notice...)

-Jay
7 posted on 03/19/2003 8:53:58 AM PST by Jay D. Dyson (Terrorists of the world, RISE UP! [So I may more easily gun you down.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson