"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

I'll bet that even as stupid as some liberals may think Bush is, he knows what the definition of "is" is...

McG, There's a huge difference between the meaning of what "is" is that involves two consenting adults in sexual indiscretion vs "full sovereignty" that involves tens of thousands of lives. Your attempts to compare apples and oranges doesn't work - except for conservatives like you.

Well, CI - when Bush or Kerry or anyone else attempt to distort the meaning of the language (which happens all the time - bless Huxley for making it so clear - and Orwell) it is time to remind them.

Doesn't matter how Bush twists it - full and sovereignty are easy words to understand.

If he uses "limited" or some such - he is, in my view, a more honest man.

dlowan, We all know that the rhetoric they continue to use are misleading, and they are getting away with it, because people "trust" their leader to be honorable men. How people are able to transform the meaning of words so easily is frustrating.

What of this--

This conversation has reminded me of the powers and position of the President, and his submission to his security detail.

Though he is President, he must follow the rules of his Secret Service. He has his job--they have theirs. They don't direct public policy, but they can take the Pres by the arm and drag him off, if they see fit, under the auspices of his security.

The IGC may tell the US forces to leave--but cannot direct their operations. They aren't qualified to direct a security force, but they have the sovereignty to tell them to leave, if they disagree with the measures used---or for any other reason.

This is why full sovereignty doesn't seem like a lie to me. It seems the Iraqi Governing Council has the best security detail in the world at their disposal.

Sophia, In this case, the tail is waging the dog. That's not sovereignty. Sovereignty is when Iraq has all legal and security control of their country.

Did we take sovereignty from Kuwait, when we went in and freed them from Saddam? Would you say our control of our military while we were there impacted their sovereignty?

Sofia, We're talking about the sovereignty of Iraq, and the language being used by this administration. Kuwait is another issue that's not been discussed in tihs forum.

Mr. Dlowan" You are correct. I must agree with you unreservedly that the Dictionary definitions are indeed correct and are the only ones that are reallly acceptable. I am greatful to you.

I hope that you will agree with me, then, that the definitions that I posted on another thread defining
"racist" and the definitions that I posted on another thread "defining "Idiot" and "Moron" should be respected as well.

If you are not familiar with those threads, I will outline them for you.

In the definition of "racist" it is clear that the "racist" is one who feels that his own race is superior. If that does not apply, a person is not a "racist"

Then, on the other post, someone had labeled Senator Inhofe an "idiot" and/or a "moron". I , of course, pointed out that the dictionary definition of those two terms made it impossible for Senator Inhofe since those two terms would apply to people who can neither read or write or if, a moron can, it would be somewhere at the third or fourth grade level. Since this is not possible with regard to Senator Inhofe, My dictionary definition settles the issue.

Again, I am most pleased with your posts, Mr. Dlowan. I am convinced that the rigorous use of dictionary definitions will severely cripple the outlandish exaggerations of the liberal left--Senator Inhofe is an Idiot will not fly under your dictionary guidelines.

As as for the definition of sovereignty?

Well, let us hope that the members of the UN, who, I am sure you will admit, are much much brighter than either you or I, and much more adept in the art of nation building, will protest vigorously if they see that the US is not defining "sovereignty" correctly and will therefore not add its approval to the US resolution.

I have noted the date- May 24, 2004. I hope that you will allow me to refer to your instructive posts to urge that people follow Dictionary definitions.

Mporter - I believe in hope and fairies and the granting of wishes.

I shall turn round three times widdershins - and make a wish - my wish is that once, just once, when you are rebutted you would acknowledge it, like the bishop you so clearly are, instead of attempting to distract the discussion to an unrelated attack on someone else.

(Clapping hands - "I DO believe in fairies! I DO believbe in fairies! I DO believe in fairies!)

That thing IS a bishop, no?

I don't purposefully avoid the Iraq situation--but I thought the comparison would flesh out "sovereignty" in the face of our military assistance.

Many times, when one looks how something similar was done, they may see a thing differently.

I have been rebutted. I am not so insecure that I. like the pompous fauxMountie, will not admit when I have been rebutted. Mr. Blatham was not only rebutted by me by I rubbed his nose in it when he dared, without looking it up, obviously, to say on May 14, 2004 -"well since you reference a Time issue wich apparently does not exist" and then I proved to him that it does indeed exist.

I know who I am and I have confidence in myself. I am not an insecure narcissist who has such little self-esteem that I cannot apologize.

I have been rebutted by you, Dlowan. But again, I must thank you for your rebuttal. I have learned that even the left wing( I assume you are a left winger, if my assumption is incorrect, please fill me in) has the sense to use the Dictionary to solve disputes.

I have been rebutted by you, Dlowan( You see how easy it is for me to repeat that--It is easy since I am rarely rebutted and I do not feel in any way diminished by my admittance of the fact. ) but, again, I hope that you, or one of your philosopical proxies, will address the UN if they are so brash as to disregard the Dictionary definition of "sovereignty" and go ahead to approve the US proposal.

I admire your ability, Dlowan. I am sure that we will meet in the future. I am looking forward to it.

I must comment on Cicerone Imposter's statement- "Sovereignty is when Iraq has all legal and security control of their country"

That may well be. I wonder if the UN will approve the US resolution if that does not appear to be the case.

However, if Cicerone Imposter is correct, then I fear that there are many many countries in the world that do not have complete security control of their countries.

At this time, we have American troops in over 120 countries in the world.

Does South Korea have complete security control of their country?

Does Japan have complete security control of their Country?(Okinawa)

Does Germany have complete security control of their country?( We have 71,000 troops in Germany- I doubt that they are there on sight-seeing tours)

Does Cuba have complete security control of their country?(Guantanamo Bay)

I must stress the adjective used by Cicerone Imposter--"Complete"

Perhaps there should be a drive to remove ALL American Troops from all foreign countries, so that those countries could have "complete security control" However, given the fact that the presence of American troops in most countries contributes a great deal to the various country economies( How many Germans work for the US in Germany?) it might not be a popular move for the countries to make.

It seems to me that some want to have it both ways. They say everything is going along a lot better than media portrays it and they also say that things are so bad the Iraqi's will not ask to leave.

I am watching the presidents speech right now. I don't know what to make of it, I will wait until those that are bit smarter than I am to pick it apart for me.

Joe biden is on hardball; it seems as if I didn't have to wait long.

This is a worthwhile point, and one others of us have been attempting to make, yet reversed.

The anti-Bush contingent seems to be trying to force a negative on both sides of this issue. You think he owes it to stay to clean up his mess--he offers to stay to clean up his mess. You say he should give sovereignty--he attempts to give sovereignty. You think Iraq should decide whether we should stay or go--he says they can decide if we stay or go.

Giving sovereignty to this nation under these circumstances is not a one day affair. Giving political sovereignty, while assisting with security during the expected chaos is the only decent option, IMO. Putting the world on notice that full political sovereignty is being passed on 6/30 is a good idea, I think, and sets Iraq in motion.

They probably backtracked on the words "full sovereignty" because of detractors such as are found here. Not because the spirit of the handover has changed--but because of those, who are picking the words apart.

Revel says a group can't have it both ways. I agree. Bush and Co. are doing everything his detractors said he wouldn't. It is a quick return of sovereignty (some may say too quick), and we are offering strongly to stay and help.

All this talk about soveriegnty is great. The only question I have is:

Until the general elections scheduled for January are held, who do we give full sovereignty too? There is a lot of government positions that have been filled, many of the cabinet positions have names attached to them, but there is no central government to give full sovereignty too.

It's symbolic and realistic at the same time.

Symbolic in that Iraq is to be recognized as a sovereign country and it's people are to begin assuming more responsibilities for it, it has to learn to walk before it can run.

Realistic in that there are certain functions it isn't ready to do on it's own but it meets criteria which show it is well on it's way to becoming self sufficient.

The election will be a whole story unto itself, we're still trying to get ours right after how many years...

Sofia,

I still don't think Bush made any sense and I don't know what to think. Biden made the same point that MGM did, which is who will the military be answerable to while in that country.

However, my original point still stands, either things are good and we don't need to stay or things are bad and we need to stay and the media has not been lying about how bad things are.

Bush did admit that things happened that were unexpected after the capture of saddam Hussien, that was an unexpected admission which is a plus.

e brown- The Iraqis are already asking us to leave?

This includes most of the governing council hand picked by the Bush Administration?

Do you have a source for those statements?

I did not read anything like that.

What I have read is below:

check for yourself-http://wwwwashingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37921-2004a=Apr23?language=printer

The Washington Post( not a conservative source) says:

Quote

"The US and the top UN envoy to Iraq have decided to exclude the majority of Iraq politicians the US-led coalition has relied on over the past year when they select an Iraqi government to assume power on June 30, US and UN officials said yesterday... UN envoy Lakhdur Brahimi, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF PICKING THE NEW COUNCIL, in consultation with the US-led coalition, made it clear yesterday that the council should disband. All opinion polls...say that the Iraqi people want something "different" than the expansion of the old council because they fear the Council will clone themselves, Brahimi added."

end of quote.

mporter, I can only suggest that you go back and reread the definitions provided by dlowan on sovereignty.