Iraq Regains Sovereignty

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
That's your opinion, and it doen't mean you can just blow it off. It is a rule for now at least.

But does this qualify as a 'political thread'? Or is it more of a "news item / current events" thread?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
That's your opinion, and it doen't mean you can just blow it off. It is a rule for now at least.

Oh sue me and get back on topic.

And I like valadil's explanation - it's a news/current events thread.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Not me. I only posted once.


.... Oh damn, I just posted again. Tricksy administrator!

See how that works, silly girl. I think we can for this special occassion let the rule be bent a little, but if the thread gets flamey, it will be closed folks.

Post away everyone.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
That's your opinion, and it doen't mean you can just blow it off. It is a rule for now at least.

that JD can only post three times a day?

we were just getting to the

yes it is!

no it isn't!

part

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh sue me and get back on topic.

And I like valadil's explanation - it's a news/current events thread.

I say it's a political thread, and that's all that matters.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by sun-star
Well, you did ask



That's Henry VIII. Charles I had just one wife, who was a Catholic.

The rest of it is historically accurate AFAIK, but I'm not sure about the parallel - after all, the King of England wasn't toppled by a foreign power or a war, but by a revolution. And though the kings had too much power, they weren't exactly dictators IMO. There was a Parliament, in any case, who had (very limited) powers over the monarchy.

Off topic, and off my own historical area.... oh dear oh dear

Whoops. Oh well. Here's more off-topicness, and then I'll stop.

Lets see...

Henry VII--Last Tudor King
Henry VIII--Anglican Church, abused power
Bloody Mary (I)-Married Catholic Man
Elizabeth I--Shakespeare, Virginia, Raleigh
(Phillip II), burned 300 Protestants at stake
James I-Scottish King, Eliz. nephew
Charles I-Long Parliament, ECW, beheaded
[Cromwell, his son]--Rump Parliament
Charles II-Merry Monarch of the Restoration
James II-Glorious Revolution
William I and Mary (II?)

And it isn't directly related or anything, I just thought it was interesting. And it showed that it takes time to accomplish any gov. change.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
that JD can only post three times a day?

Nope EVERYONE is banned from posting.

There is my "no it's not". You're turn.

[Mercutio]

The limit of 3 in "political" threads never occured to me. Not one bit. lol

Oh well...its "current events," right?

ha

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Mercutio
The limit of 3 in "political" threads never occured to me. Not one bit. lol

Oh well...its "current events," right?

ha

It's political, but I posted above that we'll bend the rules for this one, since it is a happy occassion.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
It's political, but I posted above that we'll bend the rules for this one, since it is a happy occassion.

You are so gracious SGH, most wonderful, thoughtful, pulchritudinous, consdiderate moderator.

Now, can I please...

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Lets see...

...

Is that right? Or did I get Eliz. and Mary's order mixed up.

Other way round, but the rest is OK (as far as I can tell at this time of night ) Edward VI comes between Henry VIII and Mary.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by sun-star
Other way round, but the rest is OK (as far as I can tell at this time of night )

Thank you very much .

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
To be a fly on the wall when those bastard terrorists found out that the hand-over happened earlier. *snicker*

hee hee! *pumps fist into air*

I don't think elections could have been much earlier. I think there's more integrity in sticking around and helping out then just removing Hussein and waving goodbye. In a chaotic situation like that, the unscrupulous people tend to take over. I think there needs to be some good, strong enforcement forces in place before voting can take place. I heard last night how Iraqui policemen are getting paid 10 times what they were under Sadaam. I think that's a good start - make it pay to work for good, get a solid base of people that want to enforce in a legal way as opposed to cowardly kidnappings and beheadings and thuggery. People won't vote how they want to if they think the person in charge of the ballots will inform on them and they'll get kidnapped in the middle of the night and shot.

It's extremely complex working with a culture based on different ideals than we have. I hope it can work and be at least a little better than what they had under Sadaam.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
It's political, but I posted above that we'll bend the rules for this one, since it is a happy occassion.

it is a happy occasion and i do hope it does lead to a better situation

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It's extremely complex working with a culture based on different ideals than we have. I hope it can work and be at least a little better than what they had under Sadaam.

I don't think they really have different ideals than we do. I think everyone basically wants freedom and a prosperous life and the freedom to have self determination. That is NOT what Iraq had before. The majority of iraqis don't want an Islamic theocracy or anything like that. From everything that has come out of Iraq - they want freedom and security.

[Rían]

I was afraid someone would quote that line - I didn't express it well - I tried to reword it and just gave up. What I mean is that the US culture, for example, is BASED on personal freedom, while the Iraqui culture ISN'T, as much. I certainly agree that all people desire most of the same ideals, but when your culture hasn't been based on them, it's kinda hard to change. I mean, an individual Iraqui can decide to act openly and honestly and vote for someone that may not be the favorite of some gun-toting guerillas, but the chances that he will get shot for that are much higher than the chances that an American will get shot for voting for someone unpopular.

Do you see what I mean? (I'm having trouble expressing things today - headache! )

[jerseydevil]

Well right now they are saying they want a strong leader - which I think they need. But as time goes on - they will hopefully choose leaders that represent their interests more. Right now they want someone who can bring security.

When you think about American history - we had the right kind of person at the right time - George Washington. If he was replaced with lee - we would have ended up with a much different country - the US may not have even have survived. George Washington's main goal was to the United States and was not power hungry. I don't know if this person Iraq has is their "George Washington" or not - but I hope so.

[Radagast]

*a-hem* can't let that comment about Napoleon slip- he was the best thing to happen to France since sliced bread.

[Earniel]

I think it was a very clever move to make the transfer earlier. That sure was rain for the terrorrist fireworks parade they had planned on the orginal day.

I agree with BoP, the terrorrists' faces would have been priceless when they found that out.

And NATO-countries can step in now to help and train the Iraqis. I think that's a possitive development too.

Originally posted by Radagast
*a-hem* can't let that comment about Napoleon slip- he was the best thing to happen to France since sliced bread.

Not to mention an important step for Belgium on the long road to independence.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Mercutio
This could also be compared to the English Civil War (hereafter ECW).

In brief,


The main cause of the ECW was James I and Charles I abusing their power (forcing loans, collecting ship money, not calling Parliament in 15 or so years, hurting Puritans, etc.). When Charles I was finally forced to call Parliament due to lack of money, they quickly made him sign a document prohibitting Parliament from not being called. A while later (he still abusing power), they chopped off his head. Oliver Cromwell (leader of the Roundheads, the political party against the monarchy [as opposed to the Cavaliers]) was made Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Things went...sort of ok...but still not wonderfully or anything. He died, his son took over, and did a terrible job. Parliament asked Charles I's son, Charles II, to come back. He took the throne (this was called the Restoration). Then James II ascended the throne. He...didn't do so well. Parliament asked him to leave, and, fearing for his life, he did. They then asked William of Orange (Dutch) and Mary (English) to rule. When W&M were ruling, Parliament had them sign many many important documents such as: Habeus Corpus Act (no illegal arrest/imprisonment), Act of Settlement (no Catholic on the throne, such as James I&II were), and...drumroll...the Bill of Rights. This resulted in England having the gov. they do today--a constitutional monarchy. Now, this was not too drastic a change (like the Fr. Rev.), however it took time. They needed to get the right people up top first (W&M) and then figure out what their problems were and how to fix them (such as the documents I listed).

They didn't just jump right in.


Anyone feel free to correct historical errors.

Roundheads were not a political party,
it was a vernacular name for the New Model Army,
Cromwell's military force.
Cavalier's were not a political party,
it was a vernacular name for the Royal Army

During the Commonwealth, things did not go well at all
it was by military might that Cromwell kept the populus in line
[Drogheda Massacre - look it up!]

Cromwell's son left his power due to not having wanted to do any of it in the first place, Cromwell forced him into being his successor.

James II left the throne on his death
Mary was next in line, her husband was William of Orange
Ipso Facto; they acceded in the normal fashion, not being asked to by parliament!
The main reason for William & Mary's marriage was that James II feared war with the Dutch, as did parliament

The main result of the Act of Settlement was that England(incl. Wales) & Scotland joined together as the United Kingdom