"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

Bless you my son. I am unfamiliar with this church. Could this possibly be one of the more obscure and short-lived Texas religions?

Well, I am sure that Mr. Blatham has not read or heard the speech given by Bill Clinton on Dec. 16th, 1998.

The leader of the Democratic Party and, I am told, the only man in Politics who knows about Ireneaus, said:

quote:

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government--a government read to live in peace with its neighbors--a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change to Baghdad will take time and effort...If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam wil strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."

Now, Mr. Blatham has told us that Bill Clinton is a reader and a thinker and a person who knows who knows who Ireaneus was.

Well, if Mr. Blatham is correct then Bill Clinton could not have made any mistakes in his outline of actions to be taken in the speech above.

But Mr. Blatham, like all deluded partisans, will overlook Clinton's speech because it doesn't fit his twisted view of the political realities of our world.

I can see how you thought I was referring to a specific comment that you made when I said that about "stepping up to the plate." Actually I recalling several comments made by various persons talking about the Iraqi security people not doing their job. Someone made a statement around here something like, "forcing them to defend themselves" on one of these boards and that was another kind of comment I had in mind when I wrote what I did. Sometimes I (most times) let my mind run and just type as it goes) I used to get away with that when I was on the religious boards, but I need to get out that habit around here. I doubt I succeed though.

In any event, regarding the one voice thing. There have been polls done that show (I remember it from somewhere, I can search it out at some point if needed) that show that a growing number of Iraqi's do want the Americans to leave. They didn't in the beginning, but they do now. I remember hearing on CNN one day.

I think no matter how many Iraqi's ask us to leave, it will denied that a majority want us to leave and will be put down as "those that want to deny the Iraqis a free and democratic Iraq will not succeed." Then there will be accusations made that the news media is hyping up how many people want us to leave and are not be fair in showing how many want us to stay. They will say, don't believe all the images on the tv, trust us when we tell you Iraq is really successful and the people are happy and they get down on their knees thanking George Bush as their messiah and liberating them from the evil doers. The evil media which is really a tool that satan uses to deceive the people is trying to fool you, they want us to fail and they want Iraqis and the US troops to die. Don't loose hope, we will prevail if we keep up the good fight.

(I got carried away again, I know that they will not say that last part in those exact words.)

Link

Keeping one's word - regardless of what the consequences of doing so might be - is not much of a moral principle. One probably ought not to keep a promise to the kids for a Sunday picnic when the forcast includes tornadoes.

The US and Britain brought this situation into being, and are morally responsible for the consequences of that decision. Leaving now would be to abandon this moral responsibility and would, as deb suggests, almost certainly lead to civil war, many deaths, and a highly unstable region.

The last of these (instability) will be the US's fundamental concern, that being, after all, a fundamental justification for all the deaths so far (800 plus americans, some 12,000 Iraqis - many innocent civilians). Oil resources, threat to Israel, danger of a fundamentalist state arising, the highly possible spread of instability into nuclear Pakistan, etc., are some of the factors which will mandate that US and Britain do not leave the nation unstable.

So that is NOT the intention. Nor is FULL sovereignty the intention - and it is certainly not the fact. That's the lie.

Even worse than just the fact of this lie is WHY it is being promulgated. The claim is that "we promised, thus must hold true to that promise visibily, so that the Iraqis and other Arab citizens see that it really is sovereignty that we intend."

But as Armitage and others have admitted, nothing significant on the ground will change for Iraqis on July 1. Foreign troops will still be an occupying force, still restricting sovereignty, still unavailble to Iraqi justice, still killing innocent Iraqis, still (unless one lies) effectively in charge of much of the country. Iraq and Arab media will not buy the claim of happy happy sovereignty and democracy in Iraq because it won't be true. So it isn't rational to posit that the administration is very serious about convincing the Arab world of it's intentions. Perhaps, a year ago, the administration hoped conditions would be different, but even then, the date of June 30 seemed completely arbitrary - except as related to the electoral calendar. From the perspective of the present, that date, and the insistence on sticking with it (yet not really allowing sovereignty, but claiming to do so) is evident as an attempt to sway opinion on the war back home in aid of election results.

It is the updated version of Mission Accomplished. It is a lie. And sofia and others will buy it.

Ok Sofia - let's try again - without the stupid invective. I hate it, but I am getting close.

After all, it is possible you have actually misunderstood.

You said - and I quote, boringly, in full - because you become very emotional when I do not.

"Bush has said we will leave if asked.

A brilliant exit strategy, I must say! He is leaving it up to them.

Only if they are crazy would they want us to go. And, if the **** hits the fan after we've gone, he can truthfully say we served at the will of the Iraqi government.

A no-lose decision, politically. (I hope the Iraqis think about the weight of that choice.)"


Ok - I have no idea if Bush has made such a claim - but, you are very pro-Bush - and you say he has, so I take it seriously.

I say how morally and intellectually bankrupt - and illustrate my point with an analogy, which, since you have chosen wilfully to misinterpret it, I shall now state the argument of in full, boring detail - sorry folks.

1. Bush (and the coalition) decided to invade Iraq - the reasons they gave were that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which posed an imminent threat to the US (and the west, dunno?)...

2. Iraq was invaded. No imminently dangerous WMD have appeared. It seems Iraq was invaded illegally, and without having invaded the US, or Britain, or Oz.

3. The status in Iraq before the invasion was bad. I do not especially see that it was worse than it was when Hussein was the tool of the US, but nobody denies that it was bad.

4. However, it had its own status quo - if the coalition leaves on June 30th I - and I hear no voices even from the right denying it - even you say the Iraqis would be mad to ask the US to leave - there will be chaos.

5. Yes, it is an uncomfortable position for Bush right now. He is, as you say, damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

6. Yes, it would doubtless be more comfortable for Bush to put the blame for his position on the Iraqis. The ploy (if it exists - I have only heard you say that he has said he will do this - others seem to deny it - but I engage your argument - and even you seem clear that the putative "choice" is a ploy - a brilliant one, you say) is indeed brilliant, in a Machiavellian sense. It pretends to give a choice. Do you, or anyone, really believe Bush will pull out?

7. The "governing council" is supposed, in this scenario, I suppose, to make the "choice"? If they say "no" they earn the hate - and continuing murder, of a large proportion of their country folk - whether rightly or wrongly and are presumably left to die. If they say yes, go, they condemn their country to chaos and terrible bloodshed. Do you really deny this? You say they would be mad to say yes.

8. Yes, for foolish people, this might effectively shift the blame.

9. I ask, yet again, is this an ethical move (if it is really being mooted)?

10. I challenge the ethics because we invaded Iraq. I take it this is accepted by all? By my ethical standards - (as was wisely accepted after WW II - in an act of great ethical standing, or in enlightened self-interest, or, given the terrible results of the dissimilar Treaty of Versaille after WW I, both) this bestows an obligation (especially in this instance, where Iraq seems to have been invaded without legality, or even rationality - and please do not give the post hoc fiddle of the dictator your government supported suddenly needing to be got rid of only for the good of the very Iraqi people he was quite good enough for before). In my view, this means we have an obligation to not leave the place in bloody civil war - at least until the Iraqi people are in a position to choose this option via a properly set up government of their choice - whether this be a damned theocracy, or some more, in my view, enlghtened choice.

11. I see that there is a rational hierarchy of ethical decision making. Sometimes, what would be a no-brainer good, is not so simple in certain situations.

12. I believe this putative "choice" is one such situation.

13. Normally - and I think this distinction is pretty simple - one country telling another to get out - eg if the US told the Oz embassy and such (I don't think we have troops on your shores - oh yes - only overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq) to go, it is a no-brainer that we would go. We have lots of advisers and such in Papua Nuigini - if the properly elected government told them to go, they would be withdrawn - as would our aid and such. It would likely be a foolish decision, but PNG has every right to make it, and we would obey. No brainer. Legal government, by PNG law - we do as we are told. This is the normal, obvious, ethical action.

14. However, in my view, things are NOT normal in Iraq. They are de-stabilized and incredibly dangerous. The Iraqis did not ask to be invaded. Blaming them - saying "we have done enough for them" - and that "we should leave if the (non-Iraqi decided non-) government tells us to" - or we are being unethical, or whatever terms you are using and so on seems to me to be moral sophistry of an incredibly transparent kind, which ignores the actual situation quite wilfully and attempts to impose a very simplistic black/white on a very complex situation - one which, as it stands right now, WE let loose. The pieces were in place for it, of course - but we were the catalyst.

Sofia, if you want to argue with this analysis, fine - but please, address the ethical issue.

DO you think that there is a series of steps to go through in making ethical decisions, and that circumstances affect what is the right thing to do, or do you think that all is always black and white, regardless of circumstances?

Perhaps this is a more palatable way of asking you if you agree that invasion of a country means that there is more complexity in staying or going than obtains in normal diplomacy?

As for never answering your question, I have done so several times. (I shall not stoop to playing the silly "liar" card. I prefer to believe you are genuinely not seeing my answers for some reason.) If you cannot see that, I am helpless to assist further, I shall not attempt to bore myself and everyone who reads this again. The thing is, I am working with a hierarchy of ethical obligations including those created, in my view, by a country claiming the moral highground when attacking another. If you claim it, live by it. I think staying or going is more complex than a simple "yes/no" in this situation. I cannot be more simplistic than this. In this case, your "SHOULD WE STAY, THOUGH THEY ASK US TO LEAVE" is answered - AGAIN - (since we are shouting) by a "no" at this point. Later, in other circumstances it will be a yes.

I hope the better circumstances occur.

What is your answer? Though, really, I have given up expecting one - remember, I am not asking you about whether you think it is wrong to leave now - clearly you think not, though you agree it would be a bloody mess, and you HAVE answered this question. I am asking you a meta-ethical question. I will make it simpler. Do you think that, by invading Iraq, the US (I shall leave out the other countries for the sake of simplicity) has taken on any ethical responsibility for its future? If your answer is no, well, we differ so absolutely in our ethical views that there is no meeting, in this instance. (I am sure we would have similar views in other instances - I do not, as you do, claim you have poor ethics because I seem to disagree with you so utterly on this point). If your answer is yes, then I think your stand that it is fine for the US to just pull out now is in contradiction with your stated belief. Perhaps this is not a contradiction that you see? And this is why you insist that you have answered my question by stating that the moral obligation is to stay, or go, as told to? You see, I see this as the normal obligation owed by countries to each other under normal circumstances - I am asking you if you agree that these are extraordinary circumstances - hmmm - perhaps you are saying that extraordinary circumstances have no effect? Again, I see this is a contradiction to your saying how:

"Only if they are crazy would they want us to go. And, if the **** hits the fan after we've gone, he can truthfully say we served at the will of the Iraqi government.

A no-lose decision, politically. (I hope the Iraqis think about the weight of that choice.)"

You seem to acknowledge the likelihood of "the **** hitting the fan" - can you really see no wrongness in this "A no-lose decision, politically"?

I wonder which it is? I shall certainly not bother asking again - I think the answer is clearly no.

Hmm - on re-reading your responses, I see that you did answer my question in a way, and mixed with other things - but I did not recognize this, because I did not believe the answer (that we should just stay or go on the 30th, if the "governing" council say so) was a possible one, given that you seem to think invasion gives some moral obligation.

I see we have been shouting across a crevasse. For that misunderstanding I apologise

My comment that your support of Bush's posited action, given that you see some obligation, is contradictory, stands.

Snap, Blatham. lol.

Blatham - I am now confused.

Sofia seems to be saying Bush is offering to withdraw US troops after June 30th - I assumed she meant very fast - if the council say so.

You say troops it is planned troops remain. HAS Bush said anything about really withdrawing quickly if told to? Is that a complete furphy? It has always sounded quite batty as a possibility to me.

deb

Don't feel badly about being confused. It is an inevitable consequence of administration comments.

From Dubai yesterday, Powell said...URL=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-11-2003_pg4_1]Link[/URL]

Jack Straw of Britain (PR announcements by both parties are obviously established cooperatively) said on the fourteenth, referring to an earlier statement by Powell said...Link

And here is your government's version...Link

Also, Richard Armitage (Rumsfeld's second) has said that if asked, they'd have to leave.

And note also that Bremmer has established certain restrictions upon what policies the new Iraqi government might advance. How much do you want to bet that this includes restrictions on demanding US troop withdraw. (Yes, these agreements are secret)

But watch now for changes in language. US/Brit troops will increasingly be termed 'advisors'. That will be disingenuous, of course, but that's no problem for these boys. It has already started with the raid on Chalabi's house, where the PR line is that Iraqi police were the originating and controling force behind that move.

Just a simple question; once somebody is determined to be blind (and I'm talking about politics here), are they blind for the rest of their life?

They (Bush, Powell) have said we will go as asked.
The proof of that will be easy to decipher if we are asked to go by the IGC after 6/30.

I'm not blind, ci. I'm just not going to pretend I see into the future.

Glad it is finally seen that I have answered questions put to me.

Many times, I have agreed that we bear a moral responsibility to nations we blow up. Our ability to carry out our obligations are contingent on those countries allowing us to meet our obligation.

This current fiasco is further evidence to me that the 6/30 date was a huge mistake. We shouldn't even give them the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot, as they may do. But, sovereignty certainly gives them that opportunity.
---
edit--added important contraction...

Mr. Blatham reveals that despite his knowledge of Ireneaus and his supercilious attitude concerning President Bush, he is completely unable to handle the gospel given by his leader, the esteemed Bill Clinton.

When it comes to Iraq, Clinton gave the message long ago in 1998.

Clinton said:


"we will pursue a long term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work towards the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threateining his neighbors, CHALLENGING ALLIED AIRCRAFT OVER IRAQ, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

I note that Mr. Blatham is fond of the writings of Pagels, with good reason. However, everyone to his own taste. Because Mr. Blatham is fond of a writer that dwells on Gnostic writings, he may have lost contact with reality.
Mr. Blatham- Clinton really said these things. Wake your self from your gnostic slumber.

Mr. Blatham's knowledge with regard to the Iraqi War. He gives the US unsolicited advice. He apparently feels he knows more than the US Security Council.

He doesn't. His reading is so deep that he doesn't even know how to spell the name of Paul Bremer. It is not Bremmer(sic). It is Bremmer. I would expect a scholar with knowledge of Ireneaus to be able to spell a simple name. What else lies under the iceberg of errors. We only saw the one-eighth which massacred Bremer's name? Can the other seven eights be as error filled?

Who knows? Since the erudite Mr. Blatham gives very few qoutes from valid sources. documentation or evidence.

How does Mr. Blatham know that there will be "changing language"? Is he an expert in governance? Did he filch the term from a left wing article he read and then "forget" to credit the source?

Mr. Blatham moans about the forces that will remain in Iraq still "killing innocent Iraqis"

Are these killings accidental or purposeful?

Does Mr. Blatham claim that the US forces are purposefully killing "innocent" Iraqis?

That's what he would like us to believe.

I am wondering if Mr. Blatham has copies of the order of the day which read: "Go out to kill "innocent" Iraqis.

Mr. Blatham apparently knows nothing about purposefulness.

The savage Fundamentalist Muslims PURPOSEFULLY killed 2,000 people on 9/11/2002.

He would like to pretend that the savages fighting us in Iraq are not of the same philosophical beliefs.

Mr. Blatham may be familiar with Gnostics, but he sure knows nothing about fundamentalist Islam.

Bernard Lewis, the US authority on Islam has told us that there are two houses. Lewis says:

"The House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail and, the rest, known as the House of Unbelief...WHICH IT IS THE DUTY OF MUSLIMS TO BRING TO ISLAM.'

Lewis makes it cleat that the fundamentalist group make up only a small splinter of Islam and are derided by most Islamists. However, the kind of animals who bombed the Cole, set off bombs in Bali, and cut off the heads of Pearl and Berg are true representatives of this depraved splinter of Islam.

Maybe Mr. Blatham is so compassionate that he feels for poor Iraqis who are caught up in the war.

Doubtlessly, he would also have felt compassionate for the thousands of Germans who were burned alive in the raids on Dresden and the Japanese who died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He knows, I think, that if he had been present in 1945 and made protest over these acts in many circles, he would not have escaped with a whole skin.

If Mr. Blatham travels( he says he does) I would invite him to attend one of the many memorials which will be held in New York for the victims of the WTC. I would invite him to mourn the "innocent" Iraqis.

I think Mr. Blatham, as a Canadian, has no idea at the fury felt by most Americans concerning the acts on 9/11.

I hope Mr.Blatham is not so misinformed to think that the killers of Pearl, the kilers of Berg, the many bombers and the infiltrators across the borders of Syria do not have the same philosophy as that outlined by Professor Lewis.

Mr. Blatham probably does not know. He obviously hasn't read very much on the subject since he thinks that Paul Bremer's name is spelled Bremmer.

An insignificant error? No, not for the superbly erudite and allknowing Mr. Blatham. He even consigns living Time Magazine Articles to the "memory hole" ala Winston Smith.

Hmmmm - sounds as though they (US and Brit - oh and Oz - lol) have created problems for themselves by blathering (sorry Blatham) about "returning sovereignty" when no such thing is intended, by any reasonable definition - hence the dog's breakfast of leave/won't leave/can't leave soon announcements.

But I am glad there seems no intent to abandon the country to chaos.

Pick one or all of the above. Such choices they leave for themselves.

I think Iraqi sovereignty is intended, as everyone in the administration and military says, and as the public wants.

They are trying to uphold the 'moral responsibility' you have been discussing.

It is so easy to sit back and pick. What would you do? We should push for their sovereignty--we should try like hell to stay until things are more stablized... We have to do both! ...and hope they meet on a graph somewhere, as having successfully been done in concert, successfully completed in unison.

What great prize are Bush and his evil minions planning on plucking with a longer, secretly planned stay?

Hoist on your own petard here, eh Mporter? Sorry - cheap shot, I know - but so, let us face it, was yours.

And the irony was too much fun to let go.

If you don't know what I mean - (it is very hard to proof read yourself, I know) - here is the quote:

"It is not Bremmer(sic). It is Bremmer."

Lol Sofia. I would not say I was handing back sovereignty until I was, is all.

"What great prize are Bush and his evil minions planning on plucking with a longer, secretly planned stay?"

I dunno. I haven't really figured out why the hell they went in. I assume there WAS a reason. Bases? If it was just irrational revenge, I think it is coming back to bite, no?