At present, ?which flag?? is an insignificant issue when it comes to Iraq.
The old flag bore the colours not of a state, but of an ideology: that of the Baath party, a mix of those early twentieth-century trends affectionning goose-stepping, humongous military parades, and huges portraits of sublime leaders. In 1990 was added the Allahu Akbar, to claim Islamic piety (at about the same time, Radio Baghdad was informing the world that one of Baathism's elder founders, Michel Aflaq, born a Christian in Syria, converted to Islam on his deathbed).
The state of Iraq, like many states around it, was invented in late nineteenteens in chancelleries of London or Paris; the last homegrown political structure was the Neo-Babylonian empire (sixth to seventh century before your era), and ever since, the bi-fluvial area has been the trophy of every major power to stop by (so the U.S. intervention is just keeping with historical consistency).
So when it becomes pertinent to worry about getting a new flag for Iraq, the following seems a logical, economically-sound design:
There are muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists in the US but I don't see any great debate on the 'In God we Trust'.
You're kidding, right?
Quote:
Nor should there be. It's called democracy.
Wrong. The phrase was added by Congress in the 50's to combat Them Godless Commies. No vote by the people, just a runthrough by Congress.
And there *should* be a debate about it, ending in the only rational result: eliminating it. It flies directly in the face of separation of Church and State.
Without any sort of puplic referendum, the US chosen and supported 'interim' Government in Iraq has decided that the people and country of Iraq would be better off with a new flag, despite the fact that the old flag predates Saddam.
Copuld you imagine Congress deciding that our flag should be changed without any public say in the matter?!?!?
Not off to a good start, not very democratic.
With what exactly do you have a problem with?
The fact that a new flag to replace the old one was chosen?
I say it's a new day for Iraq. So why not a new flag?
Is it the fact that the current leaders were picked by the US?
The US is the one of the only stabilizing forces in that country, should we ask SH what he thinks, maybe hire him as a consultant? Maybe UBL and his ilk?
As far as comparing our well organized form of government with what exists or existed before is a joke and you should be ashamed.
I always thought E Pluribus Unum was a great slogan. I usually don't like Latin mottos, but I like that one.
The observation that it looks a bit Israel-ish is interesting. While ideally that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, politically, if Iraqi people do see that, I would imagine that wouldn't go over well.
It would have been great to have a competition at least. You could of course stack the jury in your favor to avoid a more embarassing winner. Missed opportunity, as small as it is ultimately, I guess.
I always thought E Pluribus Unum was a great slogan. I usually don't like Latin mottos, but I like that one.
Indeed. No matter what our differences, our colors, our creeds, our religions, our political leanings, in the end we have more in common as humans. That commonality includes the need for individual freedoms as well as collective responsibilities, and we are, ultimately, our own leaders.
Makes 'In God We Trust' look positively infantile.
So when it becomes pertinent to worry about getting a new flag for Iraq, the following seems a logical, economically-sound design:
No, that is the Taliban Flag 1996-1997. Seriously. Shows you the vast cultural differences involved, that they didn't know this was the (nearly universal) "surrender flag"
It was later the black and white stripes, which, oddly, the otherwise excellent Flags of the World site doesn't have in it's database. ) In fact I can't seem to find it anywhere. I swore I saw it before. Perhaps that "CNN Presents" Taliban episode back in 2001/2002?
Vertical black stripes on white is what I recall. Was very fittingly stark.
The fact that a new flag to replace the old one was chosen?
I say it's a new day for Iraq. So why not a new flag?
Is it the fact that the current leaders were picked by the US?
The US is the one of the only stabilizing forces in that country, should we ask SH what he thinks, maybe hire him as a consultant? Maybe UBL and his ilk?
As far as comparing our well organized form of government with what exists or existed before is a joke and you should be ashamed.
It looks like you are the one who has a problem with democracy. You also probably believe the Bush admin. propaganda that the war was to liberate (?) the Iraqi people as well.
It looks like you are the one who has a problem with democracy. You also probably believe the Bush admin. propaganda that the war was to liberate (?) the Iraqi people as well.
And you are one of those who believe it was about oil and imperialism.
The war achieved and will achieve many ends, including liberation for the Iraqi people. It definitely exposed some serious corruption in the UN. It looks like Clinton's pal Mark Rich has some ties to Iraq and the Oil for food program and the ousted regime.
As far as that goes it seems that the real money was made within the Oil-for-food program and the UN/Iraq connection, as opposed to going to war and stopping that gravy train. But you guys would all be for that continuing right?
As far as that goes it seems that the real money was made within the Oil-for-food program and the UN/Iraq connection, as opposed to going to war and stopping that gravy train. But you guys would all be for that continuing right?
Yeah, that was worth 600 US military deaths(and counting)and countless of innocent Iraqis right? You should think before you post.
Yeah, that was worth 600 US military deaths(and counting)and countless of innocent Iraqis right? You should think before you post.
I could go the same way:
I guess appeasement of SH and the UN and the corruption was worth 100's of thousands of innocent lives and billions of US dollars, some now possibly thought to have gone directly to UBL and Co.?
Which is worse?
I think it could only get worse as time went on. IMO
The fact that a new flag to replace the old one was chosen?
I say it's a new day for Iraq. So why not a new flag?
Is it the fact that the current leaders were picked by the US?
The US is the one of the only stabilizing forces in that country, should we ask SH what he thinks, maybe hire him as a consultant? Maybe UBL and his ilk?
I think you're missing the point.
When post-apartheid South Africa was deciding its new flag it began by inviting submissions from the public. When the council couldn't find a decent one they invited submissions from vexillologists (flag experts) from around the world. A council sat to discuss them and the final choice was decided by a vote by delegates representing all of the country's regions and ethnic groups.
This process was initiated by an elected, sovereign government. The choice they made has proved to be very popular and the people, of all colours, have united behind it. They feel that it belongs to them.
The fact that the current leaders of Iraq were picked by a foreign country is indeed an issue. Try and consider this. The national symbol of a country has been replaced by people who cannot be said to represent the people in a process that did not take those people into account.
When post-apartheid South Africa was deciding its new flag it began by inviting submissions from the public. When the council couldn't find a decent one they invited submissions from vexillologists (flag experts) from around the world. A council sat to discuss them and the final choice was decided by a vote by delegates representing all of the country's regions and ethnic groups.
This process was initiated by an elected, sovereign government. The choice they made has proved to be very popular and the people, of all colours, have united behind it. They feel that it belongs to them.
The fact that the current leaders of Iraq were picked by a foreign country is indeed an issue. Try and consider this. The national symbol of a country has been replaced by people who cannot be said to represent the people in a process that did not take those people into account.
I thought they did have a nation-wide "submit-a-new-flag-a-thon" and the new design was the winner.
I thought they did have a nation-wide "submit-a-new-flag-a-thon" and the new design was the winner.
I didn't read that on any of the articles I read on-line, but that may well be true. The fact remains, though, that a country under occupation governed by a foreigner isn't ready to decide a flag that everyone can agree on.
Comments
The old flag bore the colours not of a state, but of an ideology: that of the Baath party, a mix of those early twentieth-century trends affectionning goose-stepping, humongous military parades, and huges portraits of sublime leaders. In 1990 was added the Allahu Akbar, to claim Islamic piety (at about the same time, Radio Baghdad was informing the world that one of Baathism's elder founders, Michel Aflaq, born a Christian in Syria, converted to Islam on his deathbed).
The state of Iraq, like many states around it, was invented in late nineteenteens in chancelleries of London or Paris; the last homegrown political structure was the Neo-Babylonian empire (sixth to seventh century before your era), and ever since, the bi-fluvial area has been the trophy of every major power to stop by (so the U.S. intervention is just keeping with historical consistency).
So when it becomes pertinent to worry about getting a new flag for Iraq, the following seems a logical, economically-sound design:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So when it becomes pertinent to worry about getting a new flag for Iraq, the following seems a logical, economically-sound design:
Nope ... France already uses that one.
Originally posted by segovius
There are muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists in the US but I don't see any great debate on the 'In God we Trust'.
You're kidding, right?
Nor should there be. It's called democracy.
Wrong. The phrase was added by Congress in the 50's to combat Them Godless Commies. No vote by the people, just a runthrough by Congress.
And there *should* be a debate about it, ending in the only rational result: eliminating it. It flies directly in the face of separation of Church and State.
And it is the official US motto as of July 30, 1956.
Originally posted by pfflam
HERE
Without any sort of puplic referendum, the US chosen and supported 'interim' Government in Iraq has decided that the people and country of Iraq would be better off with a new flag, despite the fact that the old flag predates Saddam.
Copuld you imagine Congress deciding that our flag should be changed without any public say in the matter?!?!?
Not off to a good start, not very democratic.
With what exactly do you have a problem with?
The fact that a new flag to replace the old one was chosen?
I say it's a new day for Iraq. So why not a new flag?
Is it the fact that the current leaders were picked by the US?
The US is the one of the only stabilizing forces in that country, should we ask SH what he thinks, maybe hire him as a consultant? Maybe UBL and his ilk?
As far as comparing our well organized form of government with what exists or existed before is a joke and you should be ashamed.
The observation that it looks a bit Israel-ish is interesting. While ideally that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, politically, if Iraqi people do see that, I would imagine that wouldn't go over well.
It would have been great to have a competition at least. You could of course stack the jury in your favor to avoid a more embarassing winner. Missed opportunity, as small as it is ultimately, I guess.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I always thought E Pluribus Unum was a great slogan. I usually don't like Latin mottos, but I like that one.
Indeed. No matter what our differences, our colors, our creeds, our religions, our political leanings, in the end we have more in common as humans. That commonality includes the need for individual freedoms as well as collective responsibilities, and we are, ultimately, our own leaders.
Makes 'In God We Trust' look positively infantile.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So when it becomes pertinent to worry about getting a new flag for Iraq, the following seems a logical, economically-sound design:
No, that is the Taliban Flag 1996-1997. Seriously.
It was later the black and white stripes, which, oddly, the otherwise excellent Flags of the World site doesn't have in it's database. ) In fact I can't seem to find it anywhere. I swore I saw it before. Perhaps that "CNN Presents" Taliban episode back in 2001/2002?
Vertical black stripes on white is what I recall. Was very fittingly stark.
Originally posted by NaplesX
With what exactly do you have a problem with?
The fact that a new flag to replace the old one was chosen?
I say it's a new day for Iraq. So why not a new flag?
Is it the fact that the current leaders were picked by the US?
The US is the one of the only stabilizing forces in that country, should we ask SH what he thinks, maybe hire him as a consultant? Maybe UBL and his ilk?
As far as comparing our well organized form of government with what exists or existed before is a joke and you should be ashamed.
It looks like you are the one who has a problem with democracy. You also probably believe the Bush admin. propaganda that the war was to liberate (?) the Iraqi people as well.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It looks like you are the one who has a problem with democracy. You also probably believe the Bush admin. propaganda that the war was to liberate (?) the Iraqi people as well.
And you are one of those who believe it was about oil and imperialism.
The war achieved and will achieve many ends, including liberation for the Iraqi people. It definitely exposed some serious corruption in the UN. It looks like Clinton's pal Mark Rich has some ties to Iraq and the Oil for food program and the ousted regime.
As far as that goes it seems that the real money was made within the Oil-for-food program and the UN/Iraq connection, as opposed to going to war and stopping that gravy train. But you guys would all be for that continuing right?
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as that goes it seems that the real money was made within the Oil-for-food program and the UN/Iraq connection, as opposed to going to war and stopping that gravy train. But you guys would all be for that continuing right?
Yeah, that was worth 600 US military deaths(and counting)and countless of innocent Iraqis right? You should think before you post.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, that was worth 600 US military deaths(and counting)and countless of innocent Iraqis right? You should think before you post.
I could go the same way:
I guess appeasement of SH and the UN and the corruption was worth 100's of thousands of innocent lives and billions of US dollars, some now possibly thought to have gone directly to UBL and Co.?
Which is worse?
I think it could only get worse as time went on. IMO
Unfortunately we are dealing with facts, not soldier, so no San Jacinto.
Originally posted by giant
Naples and his alamo.
Giant and his intellect.
Originally posted by NaplesX
With what exactly do you have a problem with?
The fact that a new flag to replace the old one was chosen?
I say it's a new day for Iraq. So why not a new flag?
Is it the fact that the current leaders were picked by the US?
The US is the one of the only stabilizing forces in that country, should we ask SH what he thinks, maybe hire him as a consultant? Maybe UBL and his ilk?
I think you're missing the point.
When post-apartheid South Africa was deciding its new flag it began by inviting submissions from the public. When the council couldn't find a decent one they invited submissions from vexillologists (flag experts) from around the world. A council sat to discuss them and the final choice was decided by a vote by delegates representing all of the country's regions and ethnic groups.
This process was initiated by an elected, sovereign government. The choice they made has proved to be very popular and the people, of all colours, have united behind it. They feel that it belongs to them.
The fact that the current leaders of Iraq were picked by a foreign country is indeed an issue. Try and consider this. The national symbol of a country has been replaced by people who cannot be said to represent the people in a process that did not take those people into account.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think you're missing the point.
When post-apartheid South Africa was deciding its new flag it began by inviting submissions from the public. When the council couldn't find a decent one they invited submissions from vexillologists (flag experts) from around the world. A council sat to discuss them and the final choice was decided by a vote by delegates representing all of the country's regions and ethnic groups.
This process was initiated by an elected, sovereign government. The choice they made has proved to be very popular and the people, of all colours, have united behind it. They feel that it belongs to them.
The fact that the current leaders of Iraq were picked by a foreign country is indeed an issue. Try and consider this. The national symbol of a country has been replaced by people who cannot be said to represent the people in a process that did not take those people into account.
I thought they did have a nation-wide "submit-a-new-flag-a-thon" and the new design was the winner.
Originally posted by Whisper
I thought they did have a nation-wide "submit-a-new-flag-a-thon" and the new design was the winner.
I didn't read that on any of the articles I read on-line, but that may well be true. The fact remains, though, that a country under occupation governed by a foreigner isn't ready to decide a flag that everyone can agree on.
Elections first, for God's sake.