Afghans are optimistic about the future, and this poll has some pretty stunning results:
Four years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans express both vast support for the changes that have shaken their country and remarkable optimism for the future, despite the deep challenges they face in economic opportunity, security and basic services alike.
An ABC News poll in Afghanistan — the first national survey there sponsored by a news organization — underscores those challenges in a unique portrait of the lives of ordinary Afghans. Poverty is deep, medical care and other basic services lacking, and infrastructure minimal. Nearly six in 10 have no electricity in their homes, and just 3 percent have it around the clock. Seven in 10 Afghan adults have no more than an elementary education; half have no schooling whatsoever. Half have household incomes under $500 a year.
Yet despite these and other deprivations, 77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction — compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.
The entire poll is here. The number that shocks me is the 87% supporting the US led overthrow (which places 87% of Afghan citizens firmly at odds with left-wing icon Cindy Sheehan***).
At any rate, it is difficult to tell what the polls mean, and optimism is not the same as thinking things are going well, but those who think things are going in the right direction certainly seem to be in the majority. Or then again, maybe they are just stoned on all the smack they are producing.
*** Sorry for the latest Sheehrection™. I couldn’t resist. The upside is that this gives several of you the opportunity to tell me what an awful person I am. Again.
War in Afghanistan = Good
War in Iraq = Bad
You’re not an awful person, John. You’re simply pointing out what most of us already know – that Cindy Sheehan, though portrayed in the media as the prototypical anti-war Democrat, actually represents only a tiny (but vocal) sliver of the American population.
It’s not that you’re awful, JC, it’s just that you’re…well, fixated. Aren’t there enough Lefties afoot spouting opinions that drive you bonkers and who haven’t, you know, actually lost a kid to your goddamn war?
Long, long past time for a new punching bag, John…and Christmas is coming.
Notwithstanding all the Afghanistan ‘quagmire’ predictions from many on the left, coupled with their warnings on how the muj were such fierce warriors who had bested the Soviets, Afghan winters would result in so many US soldiers coming home in body bags, Protest marches (remember those? yes, Afghanistand was protested)etc. Notwithstanding those predictions from the left which were wrong and wildly overstated, why is war in Afghanistan = Good, but War in Iraq = Bad ?
Circumstances in Afganistan allowed us to implement a smarter post-occupation strategy than in Iraq. We immediately got the UN to help set up an interim government (a real interim gov’t, not the pathetic Iraqi Governing Council that was made up of people who hadn’t been in the country for the last decade), we intentionally allowed Afghanis to take care of basic security needs (and this did mean allowing warlords to run their militias, but so be it), and we kept United States presence to a minimum, mostly relegated to hunting down terrorists.
And honestly, this was a damn good strategy, but one that couldn’t have worked in Iraq, IMO. Rummy and the neocons simply had no idea how completely devastated Iraq was after a decade of sanctions and two major wars- they were buying Chalabi’s BS about how Iraq was secular, had a strong middle class, etc.
And John- Cindy is nuts, but I’ll give her a pass since she, you know, lost her son and all.
Notwithstanding all the Afghanistan ‘quagmire’ predictions from many on the left, coupled with their warnings on how the muj were such fierce warriors who had bested the Soviets, Afghan winters would result in so many US soldiers coming home in body bags, Protest marches (remember those? yes, Afghanistand was protested)etc.
Oh. My. God. Darrel, the Afghanistan war had about 90% public support, the most of any war since WW II. The only people seriously protesting it were the hard-core lefties at Berkeley, who are clearly a eensy-weensie minority among the left. Por favor, find better strawmen.
Hopes High in Afghanistan
Notwithstanding those predictions from the left which were wrong and wildly overstated, why is war in Afghanistan = Good, but War in Iraq = Bad ?
Afghanistan was justified because Bin Laden was there and he was the one behind 9/11. The Afghan war was planned well (Pentagon had the plan drawn out long before 9/11). We used local allies to win the war and had a lot of support from outher countries going in. Things seem to be looking up.
Iraq was sold as protecting us from WMDs. That didn’t pan out so then it was spreading democracy. Now Iraqis are democratically electing a Shia dominated Islamic state, which is kind of playing into Al Queda’s strategic goal. Iraq planning short-sighted, the implementation was incompetent. Now we’re paying a heavy price, and things aren’t getting any better.
Yes there were people protesting the Afghan war, but they were much less than the people who protested the Iraq war. The country was united going into Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much. Might have something to do with people not liking being misled.
War in Afghanistan = Good
War in Iraq = Bad
MN Politics Guru
War in Afghanistan = Good
War in Iraq = Bad
I completely agree with that. Why was Afghanistan acceptable and Iraq wasn’t? Because Afghanistan actually had ties to 9/11: remember the Taliban? It was clear that Afghanistan itself was never going to bring the terrorists to justice, because it was run by terrorists, so in order to protect the U.S. we needed to intervene, which we did. The only bad thing about Afghanistan is that as soon as Iraq came on the horizon we pretty much dropped the ball on reconstruction. It’s great that the Taliban was overthrown, but we could have done better than a country that is still run by warlords outside of Kabul.
Contrast that with Iraq: no Taliban, no links to 9/11, no links to terrorists, no WMDs, no serious way of hurting the U.S. So do you see why Iraq is Bad and Afghanistan is Good?
And the NY Times front page article on Afghanistan “quagmire” by Johnny Apple.. but point taken. Afghanistan had more support than Iraq, but the invasion of Iraq was supported by a large majority here at that time, 60% to 70% depending on the time of polling.
In Afghanistan, as Brad points out, we intervened on a small scale by helping a domestic faction, Northern Alliance, and, with some UN support, have largely left the Afghans to work out most of the details. Don’t forget though, that a significant percentage of leftists however, complained that we “abandoned” Afghanistan and told us we needed to significantly increase troop levels there (according to them, we didn’t have adequate troop levels to pursue Osama or to properly re-build the country). Early on, they blamed Bush that Afghanistan wasn’t in better shape.
These same lefites then turn around and complain that the large number of US troops in Iraq is causing resentment of us as “occupiers.” I think that’s a prime example of wanting to have your your cake and eat it too, wouldn’t you agree?
The Disenfranchised Voter
That’s your evidence? A single article by one person?
Darrell, you’re a fucking moron–seriously.
Uh yes, because the Administration deliberately misled us about the threat Saddam posed.
Except that your fundamental point is false. Iraq’s govt is not an “Islamic state”, but governed by a secular constitution which protects human rights and gives rights to minorities.
WMDs were one of over a dozen justifications given to invade Iraq. Saddam had violated his 1991 terms of surrender countless times over a 12 year period, he was a known sociopathic whackjob who had invaded his neighbors and launched missiles into Israel. And most importantly, he had tons and tons of unaccounted for WMDs. And that fact is not in dispute by anyone
And they were proven wrong, considering the speed with which we have captured Osama.
Another way to look at it is who the allies were during each of these wars. The US had a lot more allies during the operation in Afghanistan, did they not? The whole thing just had a lot more support, domestically and internationally. It was when focus was shifted to Iraq that people started to look at each other and go, “Umm…maybe not such a good idea.”
Tell us, Disenfranchised whackjob, specifically what did the Bush administration “deliberately mislead” us on?
And more troop levels in Afghanistan was just what was needed to capture Osama in Northern Iran.
If he was in northern Iran in 2001-2002 why did we invade Afghanistan?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Can’t you read? On the level of the threat that Saddam actually posed. Also the 9/11-Iraq link, the Saddam-Al Qaeda relationship, and the nuclear materials.
Let me say now that I’m not going to argue with you about this Darrell as it is pointless. You think 1 article by some barely-known guy in which Afghanistan is called a quagmire equals “many on the left” calling it a quagmire.
You are a delusional fucktard.
To rid the nation of Taliban control and Al Queda bases and training camps. Any other questions?
Well, given that CIA head Tenet told Bush it was a guaranteed “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMDs (an assessment shared by the intelligence agencies of France, UK, China, Germany, and Israel), we can all certainly see where Bush “deliberately” misled us
A train leaves New York for Boston. Five minutes later another train leaves Boston for New York at twice the speed of the first train. Which train has more America hating liberals on it?
Darrell, before you sing the praises of the Iraqi “secular constitution which protects human rights and gives rights to minorities”, you might want to give it a look. All of those rights are conditioned as follows: “as long as it does not violate public order and morality.” Gee, I wonder who will be determining public morality? They’ve already decided that the constitution will not criminalize “honor killing”, in which a woman who is kidnapped may be killed by her family. Keep pitchin’ buddy, it’s a wonderful war.
Oh my Gosh – so if Bin Laden was in Northern Iran why in heck did we invade Iraq? Was there a typo?
Yes – and the new constitution says that religious leaders can become judges. And that no law in Iraq can go against Islamic law. So, they are going to have religious judges making decisions based on their views of the Koran.
What in heck does secular mean?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Guys, Darrell actually considers NewsMax a reliable source.
Don’t even bother with him.
Can you say tunnelvision?
And so troops were sent to Iraq instead of Iran because…?
Religious folk have a certain willful blindness to them. They can’t or won’t see what conflicts with their belief and seem to be viewing all evidence from an entirely different yet ultimately very convenient point of view. Its impossible to talk them out of their belief because they can’t seee things the way you do. Same of radical Bush supporters.
les, in fact I did give it a look months ago. And I think I read it more closely than you did, as you seem to have overlooked these articles
Jorge, where in the constitution does it spell out that “religious leaders” can be judges?
Same with leftists, only the leftists also tend to be dishonest
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hey Darrell–you seem to have forgotten to embolden “A”
You know the most important part–Afterall why is it listed as A?
That’s quite a claim. Specifically where in the constitution does it say that? because you seem like a really ‘informed’ type les.
Saddam allowed for ‘honor killings’. I believe you are confusing law under Saddam with Iraq’s ratified constitution.. that is unless you have a citation from the Iraqi constitution that you would like to show us
Slightly if not totally off topic:
I don’t remember ever agreeing with anything that Darrell has written here at Balloon-juice but I am glad he is here. He represents a significant minority of the population of our country and if I didn’t hear from him what that minority thinks about the topics of the day I wouldn’t know at all.
The reason I like Balloon Juice is because it has a good variety of opinion in its comments section. If the Lefties chase away all the non-lefties we will only have John to argue with. I try and often times fail to remember that when something Darrell or another Righty says something that gets my blood up.
P.S. The over/under on me not following my own advice is three hours and fifteen minutes. If you want in on that action please let me know.
Yes Disenfranchised whackjob I saw A). It seems to be directly contradicted by B) and C) as well as other clauses in the constitution
There’s no way to pretend that anyone other than an absolute fringe was opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan. No matter how much the Right tries to argue that “the Democratic Party is in the grips of the Michael Moore wing!” you can count the votes – exactly one vote against the war in the House, and zero in the Senate. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY – and I certainly won’t try to claim she is mainstream – voted for the war in Afghanistan.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how often political operatives like Karl Rove try to claim that liberals were a bunch of wusses in the wake of 9/11, the President had broad bipartisan support for Afghanistan, and he pretty much would have had broad bipartisan support for anything he decided to do if he hadn’t squandered it on the ridiculous Iraq mess. Back in October 2002 I remember thinking, “the President still has one freebie to cash in, but he better be right about this one.” Well, he wasn’t. And now the GOP has nothing to do except try and pretend that the Democrats opposed them along because, gosh, they’re just such a bunch of obstructionists.
Well, although the NY Times is left, few would argue they represent the “absolute fringe”. Yet they published a “quagmire” in Afghanistan article on the front page. How do you explain this, if opposition was limited only to the ‘absolute fringe’?
You are confused, it’s the leftist Dems who are now pretending that they never supported the war in Iraq despite having voted for it, who now lie their asses off saying that Bush “doctored” intelligence and similar claims
The Disenfranchised Voter
Actually what I see is that A overrules anything under it. Why else is it listed as A?
In fact–why is it in there at all? Iraq was secular under Saddam. You can hardly argue that the new Iraq Constitution is a secular document.
(Like the US Constitution is)
At the risk of introducing some light into this heat and actually talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq, am I the only person not hugely impressed with this survey? I was proud of our work in Afghanistan and thought we did good, though I have some concerns about our commitment to improving it and not having a backslide there. That aside, I’m a little leery of taking these results too seriously.
The methodology description at http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/998MethodologyNote.pdf indicates that in a nation of 30M they polled 1,039 across 31 provinces, excluding 2 that amount up to only 1.2% of the nation’s population and Zabol for safety issues.
Hmmm. But what’s the population of Zabol? The CIA factbook doesn’t list by province but a little googling turns up a CENTCOM press release with this line in it.
“and will feed 82,000 people for 10 days—approximately one-third of Zabol Province’s population”
So 82,000 * 3 = 246,000. Not a full percentage point but it concerns me somewhat to dismiss an area’s responses when it’s one considered too dangerous to poll. I’d also have liked to see a larger sample set, given the chaos level there.
I certainly can. Any document which spells out so many protections and rights, particularly minority rights.. coupled with language like this: “No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution” can most definitely be characterized as a secular document. Saddam’s ‘secular’ law made it legal to have honor killings
I have no problem believing the New York Times employs at least one writer who is a member of the “Michael Moore fringe” that opposed Afghanistan. Am I missing what that proves? I’ll bet they have a couple wingnuts in there too, so let me know if I have license to make an argument that the NYT is a hard-right publication based on one article.
In this thread, we have two lefty Dems who have made some pretty astounding claims
1) “les” claims without citation that honor killings are legal under the Iraqi constitution.
2) “Jorge” claims that the Iraqi constitution specifically “says that religious leaders can become judges”
Now this seems to be the modus operandi of the left. Make false claims and hope no one calls you on them. If unchallenged, repeat them as if they are facts
You must have missed the part about the quagmire article being chosen to be run on the FRONT PAGE of the NY Times
Oh, and between October 1, 2001, and October 1, 2002, the Times ran nearly 300 articles with the words Vietnam and Afghanistan in them. Again, unless you want to claim that the NY Times is part of the “absolute fringe” I think leftist Dems are running from what they said and did at that time, hoping others would forget
Probably about the same as the Green Zone.
I am for some reason reminded of the classic anti-drug commercial with the boy yelling “I learned it from watching you, okay!?” at his dad.
Don — their methodology is statistically sound. They may have introduced some sampling bias towards safety, but their numbers are sufficiently far apart that the result is still sound.
Oh, and John? You’re a horrible person. When are we going to start hearing the *good things* about Cindy Sheehan from you?
Regarding the conversation about Afghanistan — I was in support of the decision to go over there after 9/11, and I’m pleased to read reports of polls suggesting that the people tell the pollsters that they think the country is headed in the right direction (taking that with about the same grain of salt you have to take with any poll).
I’d also suspect that it’ll keep on heading in the right direction for them for about 10 or 15 minutes after the US military leaves. Which is why I find the following troubling: Time to talk: US engages the Taliban. Source is Asia Times, take it for what you will. My impression is that their writing is usually sober and well-sourced, critical of US but not ideologically hyperventilated. If any of you have deeper insight into this than I I’d be interested to hear your response.
One vote against Afghanistan in the House, and zero in the Senate. Darrell is truly in deep denial here, trying to claim that opposition to the war in Afghanistan was mainstream among Democrats.
Since I have Lexis access, I don’t have to rely on the useless Jonah Goldberg to tell me how many times the NYT mentioned Afghanistan and Vietnam in the same article. Here’s the first four hits returned by my search:
Yes, the NYT was clearly trying to tell everyone that Afghanistan was just like Vietnam. Jonah Goldberg says so!
Egads. I wonder how many times Judy made the front page…
Thought experiment, Darrell. I’d bet the Times ran more articles with the words 9/11 and Saddam in them in 2003.
Or you’re cherry-picking to make it fit your worldview.
You are incredibly naive if you think that Iraqi women aren’t going to end up with substantially fewer rights than they did under Saddam.
But then who gives a shit about the women?
Yo Darrell, nice quote mine. But if you’re going to ignore the part of the constitution that subordinates individual rights to public morals, you could at least find something that is relevant or contradicts the part I quoted. Can you say Sharia?
“Now this seems to be the modus operandi of the left. Make false claims and hope no one calls you on them. If unchallenged, repeat them as if they are facts”
You might want to re-read the Iraqi constitution…you missed a couple of things.
Article 2 Section 1 states: Islam is the official religion of the state and the basic source of legislation.
Article 90, Section 2 specifically puts sharia court judges on the Supreme Court. There are only three other countries that do that, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Of course, that’s the modus operandi of the right…when someone disagrees with you or criticizes dear leader, scream “LIAR!” at the top of your lungs. Repeat as needed.
How much thread can a Darrell queer if a Darrell can queer thread?
Actually I saw that heroine production is slightly down this year from last year. :-)
It’s amazing. Afghanistan was the just war. The war this whole nation rallied around and supported.
It’s just too bad President Asshat had to divert resources from that country into Iraq and polarize the nation.
I see Darrell is still trying to make strawman arguments.
I ask… To what purpose? Afghanistan was universally supported? Why do you want to polarize things by turning that into a big argument?
Clearly, and this goes to John’s Sheehan moment too… You somehow think you can gain politically. Frankly, I think that does a terrible disservice to the brave men and women who went over their to fight… not for your political capital, but for this nation’s security.
What I actually wrote you lying sack of shit
Nowhere did I say it was ‘mainstream’ among Dems to oppose Afghanistan. However, like with Iraq, which also enjoyed significant bi-partisan support, after the shooting started, as with Afghanistan, Dems were quick to take unfair shots. Voting in support of going to war in Afghanistan does not mean that many, many on the left did not start telling us soon afterward that Afghanistan was a “quagmire”, like “Vietnam”, etc.
It’s good that the Afghanis feel positive about their future, and that overall Afghanistan is on a better, stable footing than Iraq.
The pity of it is, Afghanistan has a long way to go: the Taliban is still there and still trigger-happy, there’s still 25 plus years of war damage across the countryside that needs fixing, there’s still a thriving drug industry, and there’s still the threat of tribalism that could well pull the country apart (again). It would have been nice if we’d spent the last 3 years fixing Afghanistan which had broad international support instead of focusing on Iraq, which has spread thin our military resources, taken away financial resources that could have aided Afghanistan, and ruined America’s reputation abroad.
Darrell, as usual, ignores the evidence, preferring to call people a “lying sack of shit” as his rebuttal. Par for the course for a blog troll whom I have wasted too much time with already.
Already answered and refuted above. try reading
Here is article 90 of the Iraqi constitution in its entirety:
Nowhere in article 90 is there ANY reference to putting “sharia court judges on the Supreme Court” as you claim. Like I said before, lefties repeat these kind of lies as if they are fact until challenged. You have been challenged with citation. At this point you appear to be just another lefty spreading false claims
Uh Steve, I blockquoted what I actually said, rather than what you said that I said. I’ll let others draw their own conclusions as to whether or not you are a lying sack of shit. But I hardly ‘ignored the evidence’ as you dishonestly claim
Read it again. You’re quoting article 91. Article 90 will come just before that.
1st – The Supreme Federal Court is an independent juducial body, financially and administratively, its work and duties will be defined by law.
2nd – The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia and Law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that shoudld eb passed by 2/3 of the parliament.
Try shouting “LIAR!” just a little bit louder…I’m sure it will convince everyone if you do.
If you read upthread, by merely pointing out that the NY Times ran a front page article regarding Afghanistan being a Vietnam-like ‘quagmire’, I was immediately called “a fucking moron”. Look, many on the left did call Afghanistan a ‘quagmire’. Now that it’s going well, they are changing their tune pretending they never raised such objections. The author of the NY Time article, Apple, is a classic case in point.
I would like to belatedly acknowledge Steve’s point on the Vietnam/Afghanistan analogy. It does seem that Goldberg may have overstated the point, but without access to Lexis to see the articles in question, it’s impossible for me to determine how much
Seriously folks, in regards to Darrell, please heed the posted signs.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well, you’re right about that…you certainly can. You also certainly will look like a fool when you do.
The new Iraq Constitution is not a secular document.
Actually, according to the WPost text, I quoted Article 90 and you quoted article 89, but whatever.
I had not read that portion before and I agree that strengthens your claim. Much more so than the wild-ass claims made that the Iraqi constitution legalizes ‘honor killings’. Mixing some “experts” in Islamic jurisprudence elected by 2/3 majority is something to keep an eye on. But the constitution clearly states: “No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.”
Let’s try this again:
Going after those who attacked us on 9/11 (no, it wasn’t Saddam): *Good*.
Not going after them: *Bad*.
Oh, and for those of you cherry-picking the Iraqi constitution who ‘support’ Afghanistan, but opposed going into Iraq, would you please point me to your objections over the Afghanistan constitution which claims up front in the very first Article that “Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic”? Funny I don’t recall hearing any such objections or concerns from you lefties. Only Afghanistan = Good, Iraq = Bad. When you’re an unprincipled hypocrite, you can get away with those types of double standards I suppose
The version I was referring to is on npr.org, not sure why, but their numbering is different than other translations.
Since every translation that I’ve found (npr, wapo, heritage.org, nyt) says that Islamic law is the basis for the constitution and all other law and the provisions of that document and those laws will be interpreted by Sharia judges and that no law can be passed that contradicts the rules of Islam, your statement that the Iraqi constitution is a “secular document” seems to be kind of a stretch.
Wouldn’t you agree?
What part of “No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established” don’t you understand?
My support of the war against the Taliban had nothing to do with making Afghanistan a western democracy. I wanted the government to catch the bastards who hit the WTC and to punish the government officials that supported them.
Once we beat the Taliban and had Al Quaeda on the run, I would have favored pulling out of Afghanistan and placing the continued pursuit of OBL anbd AQ in the hands of the FBI and Interpol. Unless they are directly tied to a government, terrorists are simply criminals and should be treated as such.
What do you think the “rights and freedoms” stipulated by our own Constitution would be if Pat Robertson, Don Wildmon, Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell were in charge of interpreting them? Think things might be a tiny bit less secular?
I’ve heard argued that the “rights and basic freedoms” clause and the “based on Islamic law” bits are actually going to cause a fairly big problem because a strict interpreation of the Koran can and will directly fly against some of those basic freedoms.
The question seems to be whether the basic freedoms clause supercedes the Islamic law clause.
I agree with that statement. The constitution seems to contradict itself
Please Don’t Feed the Trolls
Holy crap! Something I can agree with Darrell on…
Next stop, dogs and cats living together.
I’m not sure that mixing in some experts in Islamic law with other judges, all of whom have to be approved by a 2/3 majority is the same thing as Dobson and Falwell running the Supreme court, but nonetheless you do raise a legit area of concern. Given the contradictions in the constitution, we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out. My gripe started with the absolutist statement upthread that Iraq was a “Shia dominated Islamic state” followed by some of the other wild-eyed characterizations (legalized ‘honor killings, etc)
Can you blame them? I asked you how it is that with overwhelming support, you are building a strawman and the only thing you have to support your position is one single article?
Again… How many? a dozen? four? Cindy Sheehan?
So let me get this straight. Since you believe cindy Sheehan speeks for all of the left, then that means that Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler speeks for you, right?
That is what you are arguing, correct?
If that’s the way you want it, then yes you are a fucking moron.
The Disenfranchised Voter
And no doubt that is “proof” enough for Darrell. Like I said, he is a fucking moron.
Looks like CINDY SHEEHAN has wated her time with her little band of peace pansies why dont they just go home and celebrate christmas with a bowl of bug infested rice in muddy water
Not necessarily. Fundamentalists don’t believe that “morality” laws against abortion, birth control, women’s rights, etc. restrict people’s freedom.
Darrell, you wrote:
Only Afghanistan = Good, Iraq = Bad. When you’re an unprincipled hypocrite, you can get away with those types of double standards I suppose
That means you’re calling me an unprincipled hypocrite.
Ok, here I go.
You are so insecure with your world view that you can’t stand it when anyone challenges it. You are clearly in the minority, and it’s a scary place for you to be, so you lash out by name calling because you have no strong arguments to rely upon.
Apologies Marcos, I shouldn’t have quoted you. As I stated in my post, the unprincipled hypocrites are the ones cherry-picking the Iraqi constitution for evidence of islamic influence, while silent on the issue of Afghanistan’s constitution which says up front that it it an “Islamic Republic”, something Iraq’s constitution does not do. Double standards without a doubt.