2
   

"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:11 am
I am reading Salam Pax's blog - it is wonderful - out in book form.

I SO hope he is not one of the possibly fake Iraqi bloggers mentioned by Craven.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:15 am
I was arrested once for "disturbing the peace" while "singing" in the shower and you want me to provide an anthem for Iraq?
Well ok but it's a varriation on a theme from the Holy Modal Rounders LP "Good Taste is Timeless" we find the first cut to be "Do you like Boobs alot, do you wear your jock alot?" with slight modification we can have "Do you like bombs alot, do you wear your towel alot?"
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:31 am
Blatham

It seems that you and I are destined to remain diametrically opposed on most if not all political issues. As you remember in most of our discussions I prefer to reduce and narrow problems so that a pragmatic workable solution can more easily be arrived at. In this controversial practice I am often accused of reducing all things to black and white while you and others insist on examining all the gray areas in an attempt to arrive at the "perfect" idealistic solution.

In the "Transfer of Sovereignty" our postions have become reversed. You insist on a "black and white" transfer with all gray areas resolved immediately. I give you an excerpt from your link:

"It's a charade," said a diplomat at the United Nations, where a resolution blessing the interim government has been proposed by the United States. "The problem is that you need a charade to get to the reality of an elected government next January. There's no other way to do this."

"THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU NEED A CHARADE TO GET TO THE REALITY OF AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT NEXT JANUARY. THERE'S---NO---OTHER WAY TO DO THIS" (I'm not shouting-----I can never make the italics thing work)

I have a real problem with your adamant insistence that Bush is lying about the practical problems of getting this thing done. You or I or anyone involved in this transition would be faced with the same dilemma and I think we would all opt for the CHARADE.

Do you still insist on the "black and white" transfer?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:33 am
or perhaps just an honest one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 10:48 am
I don't care if it's black, white, or grey, as long as it is transparent.

If it's a charade, tell the American people that it is a neccessary charade. Lying about Iraq is second nature to the administration, they don't even think before doing it anymore....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 11:05 am
I don't know if there isn't more fantasizing than lying (which could be the same thing). What they conjure up seems to split apart at the seams and takes on its own character and momentum. Now comes the crucial time as they do have to rely on diplomacy as a sideshow to the war. They haven't got a good record for diplomacy or soft power.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:17 pm
dys

Good start. Possibly, some problem with the towel reference, but if you handle that by stanza three, you might be ok. Also try to steer away from onion towers and onion breath.

Perc

You picked the one possibly sensible comment anyone has made. But let's backtrack a bit.

First, I haven't argued that sovereignty can be or should be immediately assumed by the political structure in Iraq. I doubt there is anyone who believes that is possible. It will have to be gradual and sequential. It will not have occured by June 30, so that is a falsehood for Bush to claim it will have been achieved by then. You and I, I'm pleased to see, are agreed on this. (italics can only be added in the 'post reply' function, but not the 'quick reply'...just highlight the word, and then click on the box marked 'i').

So then it becomes a matter of coherently explaining whether the falsehood is justified. The UN rep said it is a necessary charade. Whoever that guy was, I like him for at least trying to be honest. But still, the claim maybe not so sensible as it first appears. Who exactly is the charade supposed to convince or fool?

As I noted above (and as many others have as well) the Iraqis in all the major cities are likely to be faced with daily evidence that it isn't so. Also likely is that their own media has been covering the issues as well as ours, and as they have the real interest in sovereignty and civil stability, their attention to these matters will likely be more acute than ours. One assumes that would hold true, to some degree, for all the Arab press. I very much doubt that this audience is predisposed to trusting what Bush says. The danger here are two-fold: further mistrust because of the falsehood, and also the factor that Craven alluded to earlier on another thread - the insult that comes with being patronized, "You Iraqis aren't quite smart enough to be able to handle the truth, so I'm giving you this comfortable charade until you grow up." Yet all of that could be so easily avoided by being truthful and by granting them respect.

It is possible that this administration believes that if they say something often enough, people will come to think it so. There's good evidence that they treat their own citizens in this manner, so they may well think that might work for Iraqis too. But the election is coming, and Iraq is the biggest albatross around Bush's neck. We know from the staged "Mission Accomplished" PR move that the administration will attempt to present an image of states of affairs which are false or misleading to the American public for presumed electoral gain. This presentation of 'total sovereignty' fits precisely this pattern.

Here is what the Arab headlines are saying about the new Iraq government...


Quote:
First test of the Iraqis' will. Broadest government formation in Iraq's history.
Headline in Baghdad's al-Mada


Public satisfaction over new president.
Headline in Baghdad's al-Mu'tamar


March for independence, beginning of democracy.
Headline in Baghdad's al-Shira


Yawer: Iraqi president with limited powers.
Headline in Baghdad's al-Zaman


Iraq has clearly taken an important step, a step that will clear the way for further new steps on the march towards freedom and sovereignty, on the road to building a federal, pluralist, democratic Iraq in which all will enjoy equal rights and duties.
Baghdad's al-Adalah


We should congratulate ourselves - we set out to go the extra mile for full sovereignty despite the weaknesses involved. We are seeking to pass through the transitional stage to lay the foundation of our new state. We do not expect this process to be so easy since it could be the most important stage of democratic construction.
Baghdad's al-Dustur


The Iraqi people's role in selecting the government has been marginalised. The occupation forces have flagrantly intervened to impose whoever pleases Washington and London... This means a plan has been cooked up well in advance for marketing through the United Nations... We therefore reject this formation, believing that such a method of selection in no way serves our people's interests and legitimate aspirations.
Baghdad's al-Da'wah


Agreement in Iraq - Iraqis are able to convince others that the country's future is their own business.
Saudi Arabia's al-Jazirah


Towards a new Iraq - Iraq will enter a new stage with its new president, Ghazi Yawer.
Saudi Arabia's Ukaz


They have overcome the difficulties of choosing the leader and members of the government through extensive efforts. Iraq has become a country and a government after an absence of more than a year... the most important thing now is: how will they rule Iraq?
Egypt's al-Ahram


Today, Iraqis are standing on the threshold of a new era. A country which has not known the meaning of stability and tranquillity for the past four decades yesterday took a step in the right direction by naming the first president of the republic since the fall of the former regime.
United Arab Emirates' al-Ittihad


It will be a new era and an arduous task... However, Iraq will not progress if all terrorist acts are not curbed.
Kuwait's al-Watan


Iraqis are close to realizing their dream of regaining their sovereignty and ruling themselves. Entering a new era yesterday in the shadow of the Anglo-American occupation, the transitional Governing Council which was formed by the US immediately after the fall of Baghdad last year was dissolved. The new government faces many difficult options and in order to transcend them it should have credibility among ordinary Iraqis who are bearing the brunt of the crimes, the practices of the occupation and the bloody events.
UAE's al-Bayan


The new regime in Iraq will be like that of [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai - a weak one backed by the US.
London-based al-Quds al-Arabi


Yawer's next mission will be to go on marathon trips for the sake of promoting the political system and brightening the image of the new government to his people. This job requires him to risk his life daily. He should convince his people that this is their government and not Bremer's, and that the UN and not the US is their custodian.
London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:50 pm
Blatham

Thanks for the Iraqi headlines and the tip on italics I was fairly impressed with the lack of Coalition bashing but the last headline reiterates why we tend to patronize them:

"Yawer's next mission will be to go on marathon trips for the sake of promoting the political system and brightening the image of the new government to his people. This job requires him to risk his life daily. He should convince his people that this is their government and not Bremer's, and that Uthe N and not the US is their custodian".
London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat

After the UN departed like the cowards they are, after one bomb attack, how can anyone be so naive as to think that the UN is capable of solving any of their problems? Not to mention being part of the biggest financial fraud in history.


OK I'm through "nit-picking" so on to the real issue. Bush telling the truth:

You agree that we cannot turn everything over immediately-----whew that was a real accomplishment to get that out of you. So the next question is-----how do we tell the world about the transition and what exactly do we say????

Perhaps you would like to write a speech for Bush to really spell out to the world and the median sharks about the transition. What exactly would you say that would be correct tomorrow and into the future so that you would never be forced to back up and equivocate. I await your masterpiece.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:58 pm
Hey, I am not a highly-paid politician/head of state, and neither is Blatham.

It's not our job to create masterpieces. It IS their job to do it, a job which you and I pay them for. Quit appealing to extremes and apologizing for people lying, geez, how far are you willing to go perception?

There wouldn't have to have been a 'masterpiece' written if Bush &co. had been truthful about what is going to be turned over, and what isn't.

All he had to say was, 'Okay. The situation in Iraq isn't stable enough to give them complete power, so we're gonna give them some now and some in January after they vote in a new leader.'

But that doesn't sound good to the average idio--- I mean, republican voter, so he didn't say that. He said 'complete turnover of sovergnity' over, and over, and over, because it makes a good sound byte.

His whole administration is a sound byte.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 01:15 pm
cyclops

Your teenage, high school debating language is very tiring-----would you please retire to the marble game outside?

Blatham does NOT need a ranting ideologue surrogate to answer for him.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 01:22 pm
<wonders where the arrows in his back came from>

Great job shooting the messenger when you have no adequate response, obfuscation (that's what I'm gonna call ya from now on)

I apologize for the fact that you can't adequately respond to my issues. In thread, after thread, you consitently drop points that you cannot support. It's a pretty standard tactic when arguing a losing position, and really quite unsurprising.

Prove me wrong. Respond to what I said. I responded to what YOU said.... step up to the plate or step off.

Cycloptichorn

On edit: if my langauge and rhetorical structure is so high-school, it should be easy for you to destroy it with your advanced knowledge. Go right ahead.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 01:30 pm
You'll have to excuse me but I refuse to suffer spoiled teenagers.

I will not respond to you again.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 01:33 pm
heh. I'm 24.

Young enough to be idealistic, too old to be called a teenager. Nice try though.

Great tactic though, when you cannot respond to the points to resort to charchter assassination. Why don't you shut me up by destroying me rhetorically?

I mean, if you can't adequately address what I say... how can you possibly address those people who are so much better than me?

Just asking.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 02:47 pm
Cyclo, Keep up the good work. Wink
I've been around the block a few time myself, and think you're doing a yeoman's job. Wink
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:53 pm
perc

Actually, I've never said that sovereignty ought to be or could be turned over now. And I have said explicitly that the US military cannot (morally or prudently) leave Iraq yet, the liklihood of very dangerous instability is too great.

As to what Bush ought to say, I did address that earlier on this thread. Tell the truth. Tell the Iraqis exactly what is going on, that sovereignty will move sequentially. Give them a timeline for the major steps, and ask for their help to achieving those targets.
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:18 am
Yes. Bush should tell the truth--Just as FDR told the truth about Pearl Harbor--Just as Harry Truman told the world about the Atomic Bomb being developed--Just as Eisenhower told the world about the U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union--Just as Kennedy told the world about the secret plan to remove missles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets in exchange for no more Soviet missles in Cuba--Just as Johnson told the world about our "victories" in Viet-Nam--Just as Nixon lied about Watergate--Just as Carter was forthcoming about the Iran hostage Crisis--Just as Reagan was transparent about the Iran-contra funds--Just as Bush I was open about his goals in Desert Storm--Just as Clinton was truthful about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky------------------------------------------that is how George W. Bush should handle the truth.

The American Voting Public will judge George W. Bush in November 2004. Any other commentary may be interesting but hardly crucial!!

The American voter is not a quixotic theoretician. They know that a good poker player never shows all of his cards--especially when you are playing poker with fanatics!!!!
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 12:23 am
What does sovereignty "moving sequentially" mean?

What is the "sequence"? How fast does it move?
Do events in Iraq affect the "sequence" and its speed?

It would appear that they would!

How can you tell people what will happen when it is unknown what sequences you must follow and how quickly those sequences will take place????

Would the necessity of waiting to see how events unfold mean that President Bush is not telling the truth??
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 04:53 am
septembri wrote:
Yes. Bush should tell the truth--Just as FDR told the truth about Pearl Harbor--Just as Harry Truman told the world about the Atomic Bomb being developed--Just as Eisenhower told the world about the U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union--Just as Kennedy told the world about the secret plan to remove missles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets in exchange for no more Soviet missles in Cuba--Just as Johnson told the world about our "victories" in Viet-Nam--Just as Nixon lied about Watergate--Just as Carter was forthcoming about the Iran hostage Crisis--Just as Reagan was transparent about the Iran-contra funds--Just as Bush I was open about his goals in Desert Storm--Just as Clinton was truthful about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky------------------------------------------that is how George W. Bush should handle the truth.

The American Voting Public will judge George W. Bush in November 2004. Any other commentary may be interesting but hardly crucial!!

The American voter is not a quixotic theoretician. They know that a good poker player never shows all of his cards--especially when you are playing poker with fanatics!!!!


There is no security reason to lie about the sovereignty. The lie does not fool the Iraqi so it must be a lie to fool those of the voting public in the US who don't pay attention to "quixotic" theologies but just listen to the catchy phrases that sound good. To some of the voting public when they hear phrases like "on July 1st the coalition will turn full sovereingnty over to the Iraqis" that translates into "at last there is an end in sight." It is using crooked used car salesmen tactics again like on the Andy Griffen episode. Fix a lemon up to look good and put some saw dust in it to make it run for a few days just to sell it off quick. Or like the small print of an advertising ad.

I think that was blattam's whole point with this thread. (am I right,
blatham?)

As just a question, who are you calling fanatics, the Iraqis?

I found an article on yahoo this morning that goes along with this conversation.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040603/ts_nm/iraq_powell_dc
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 04:53 am
!
Cyclo, don't let this percep discourage you from posting.

Most of us here know what he is.

I heard W say today that on June 30th Iraq will have "control of their own government". That is a blatant lie. The Iraqis will damn well know it is. Most Americans won't know this is a sham because the Media won't let them in on the lie.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 05:06 am
Radikal

Perc is an old friend of mine, by the way. We disagree on most everything (except on Irish women), but I'm happy he's here tossing his notions into the mix. I'm pleased you are too.

Septembri

Above, you said..."The American voter is not a quixotic theoretician. They know that a good poker player never shows all of his cards--especially when you are playing poker with fanatics!!!!"

Yet as we know, on another thread you've just claimed that 95% of American voters aren't aware of what's going on in politics. I'll let you reconcile these two statements. I don't think I can manage it.

revel

Yes, the point of this thread was specific...to demonstrate the rather obvious...that Bush's claim of 'total and complete' sovereignty is a lie. Perc picked out the one possible justification for it, but as I've argued above, that justification isn't coherent.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 10:50:52