!
I am so glad that perc isn't a friend of mine. I wouldn't want a friend that defends War Criminals. On the Net one can have arguments and no blood is shed but off Net I believe would be a different story, especially if the insults were anywhere close to ones on the Net.
W is a Sociapathetic liar and so are most of BushCo. I believe the whole bunch should be tried for War Crimes.
Blatham
I've had some fun as have you but it's time to stop kicking this dead horse.
You should really take a hard look at your political philosophy though-----you attract fanatical bomb throwers the same way bin Laden attracts suicide bombers.
I won't let that fact affect my feeling that you are a caring, compassionate human being but with flawed PERCEPTIONS of reality.
percy
I attract but two categories of people; bill collectors and women. Trouble all around.
Same back at ya.
Yes, the American voter is not a quixotic theoretician
Yes, They know that a good poker player never shows all of his cards.
Yes, 95% of the American voters do not know what is going on in Politics.
I hope that I do not have to define the words quixotic and theoritician. The truth of that statement is self-evident.
Most of the American voting public know that a good poker player never shows their cards but, again, 95% of the American voters do not know what is going on in American Politics.
In one of my favorite books- "The Vanishing Voter" by Thomas E. Patterson- professor at the JFKschool of Government at Harvard, Professor Patterson and his staff interviewed over 100,000 American voters.
He found the following:
l. A period of boredom concerning politics on the partof the American voter between Super Tuesday and the party conventions.
2. Astounding ignorance of Gore and Bush's basic policy programsby American voters.
Patterson believes that the influence of single-issue groups and what he calls "the relentless scoffing of candidates by journalists" are the main reason that half of the possible voting population do not appear at the voting booths.
Blatham said: I never said that the military should leave yet.
He also wants Bush to tell the truth>
As perception said: How do you say it?
Blatham said: Tell the truth, tell them that Sovereignty will move "sequentially"
What does sovereignty "moving sequentially" mean?
What is the "sequence"?
How fast does it move?
Does President Bush know how fast it will move or is its speed conditioned materially on events which may or may not take place in Iraq after June 30th.
If, for example, a totally unlikely scenario results after June 30th----there are NO suicide bombings, no attacks on troops, Iraqis, Iraq politicians or anyone working on reconstruction for three months and at the same time, Iraqi security forces are in place in all of the major cities and performing admirably, what would happen next?
Why, I am sure that President Bush would aim to have a large portion of the troops home by Christmas, 2004.
If, however, there are more suicide bombings, attacks on Iraqi citizens and leaders and on Coalition troops, then the SEQUENCE affecting total sovereignty will and must change.
I am sure that Blatham knows that there are still American troops stationed near the DMZ in South Korea Fifty years after the armistice was signed.
At this time, the US is moving 3,600 troops from South Korea to Iraq. 34,000 American troops will remain in South Korea.
As I indicated, "There are still American troops stationed near the DMZ in South Korea fifty years after the armistice was signed between the two countries, North Korea and South Korea.
septembri
blatham just said that Bush aught to say that eventually the US will be in a position to leave the country and that until that time the coalition troops will remain in the country under the control of coalition. He didn't say that Bush should say when they will leave but that it would be a gradual leaving therefore the Iraqi's will have a gradual sovereignty of their country. In other words, nothing changes after july 1st that isn't already happening now.
In those other cases where the US has troops there are agreements signed and conditions set where upon both parties agree to those condtions making it a true partnership.
Whereas in the case of Iraq there is no such agreement between Iraq and coalition, but rather the coalition saying what it will and will not do and that is the difference.
Colin Powell said that the coalition will have the power to veto, and there it says it all with anyone with half a brain to think things through.
Maybe the voting public should get some quixotic theologies in themselves instead of relying on others to think for them to tell them what is a practical option and what is not a practical option.
I am glad to see them taking this seriously.
On the other hand, we ought not to praise this too highly. The closeness of these fellows to the US puts their credibility in some question. They will be encouraged to say certain things, that's pretty obvious. How willing they'll be to step out on their own and speak in contradiction to Bremer's wishes is an unknown.
Blatham
You've got more caveats than a shark has teeth. What does your family think of your decision making?????
bernie's mum is still sore from the sharks teeth.
McGentrix wrote:I am glad to see them taking this seriously.
McGentrix - yer stretching threads with that signature!
revel. The large majority of the American Public could never be "quixotic theoriticians." since they definitely do not fit into the category of impractical speculators.
I am afraid, revel, that the left wing is highly depressed today. It looks like good things are happening in Iraq and the left wing does not want good things to happen there since they don't give a damn about Iraq and the Iraqis. Thier major focus is on the denigration of President Bush.
I would love to have heard the howls of rage from the left if President Bush had said what Iyad Allawi, the PM of Iraq told the world today.
He said that security was his top priority.
He called for an end to Guerilla attacks.
He said that withdrawal of US led troops now would be a major disaster.
quote Mr. Allawi:
"Your government sees that only the restoration of security and the safeguarding of citizen dignity, honor, and money will allow us to successfully proceed on the political track and achieve a transfer of full sovereignty"
It is clear, revel, that the Iraqi PM sees the achievement of "sovereignty" as a process--something that WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER security, and the safeguarding of citizen dignity, honor and money.
Allawi is apparently not an impractical nit picking utopian. He knows that there must be a process.
If President Bush had made a similar statement, I am sure that he would be crucified by foreigners whose real goal is to denigrate him in any way possible. The nay sayers are not really interested in the solutions offered by Allawi. Instead, they fear that a solution may be forthcoming.
How would they criticize President Bush then?
sofia and perc
Don't suddenly forget what Brahimi has said about this process...that the selecting has not been (as various US admin officials have claimed) in the hands of Brahimi, but that it has been mainly in the hands of the US.
The caveat I added above was to underline that the process has not been transparent, and that the statements by principals have been contradictory. On PBS tonight, David Brooks said that for this all to work, there must be more reality of sovereignty and less "appearance" of it.
There is a very real need for Bush to create the appearance of sovereignty, as this is the issue that has dragged him down towards an electoral loss. And as the US was central in the choosing of this group, one would be prudent to acknowledge that appearance of sovereignty would not be irrelevant.
Blatham--
How would you have done it, really? They don't have the infrastructure to hold elections--and you know this. It wasn't a perfect start--but to get Iraq up and running, Bush selected people to select people. There will be elections in January.
I don't know why you are beating this horse. It is obvious to all who are looking that Bush is doing his dead level best to give Iraq to the Iraqis. The Iraqi police are taking over from US/coalition troops of major cities every day.
Why continue to criticise? This has gone incredibly fast so far. We're not playing Monopoly---a country is being born. I think those who have a part in it are doing an incredible, thankless, over-critiqued job.
(Of course, say what you please. Mini-rant concluded.)
First and foremost, the interim government is only asking to have control over their own soldiers and police force. They do not want to control the coalition forces; but to coordinate their forces with the coalition. That's what the interim government claims is their right to "sovereignty." We shall see.
