revel:
Biden? Biden? You mean the plagiarist Biden?
Who is the military answerable to in that country?
Question:
Who is the US military answerable to in South Korea? They have been there for over fifty years.
Are all crimes committed by US soldiers tried in South Korean courts?
Not on your life.
Who is the military answerable to in Okinawa?
There have been cries of outrage when charges of rape have been leveled against the US soldiers in Okinawa.
Have those cases been tried in Okinawan courts?
The truth is that no one can predict exactly what the situation will be when the UN approves the US proposal with regard to the Iraqi council and the status and powers of the US military.
As Mr. Dlowan said: Definitions are crucial.
I am sure that the UN will deal with the definition of sovereignty in Iraq while the US military is in that country.
If that is not a solution which appeals to the "left wing liberals" they are, of course, free to object.
mporter, You must provide full and complete information before you make any claims. The US turned over the soldier that raped the Okinawa girl.
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/06/19/NewsInBrief/U.Military.Hands.Over.Rape.Suspect-513934.shtml
Cicerone Imposter:
I read Dlowan's definition and agree with it. I said so. Did you not read my post?
However, my agreement with the definition laid out by Dlowan may have little to do with the acceptance of the US proposal by the UN. I am sure that the UN has members which know much much more about nation building and sovereignty than we do. That will be the crucial document.
I am sure that the UN has long pondered the difficulties of maintaining "sovereignty" in the sovereign states of South Korea and Japan and Germany and about 110 other countries.
As you may be aware, Cicerone Imposter, the US has nearly 70,000 troops in Germany. Does the presence of those troops impinge on German sovereignty? Have agreements and protocols been drawn up to allow for disagreements?
What was the original purpose of placing so many American troops in Germany? Why don't the Germans just tell us to get out?
Why do we still have nearly 60,000 troops in Japan and Okinawa? Do those troops mar the sovereignty of Japan? If not, why not?
Why don't the Japanese just send us packing?
The truth is that American troops are in countries all over the world. The truth is that if those countries wanted to exercise their "sovereignty" as SO CLEARLY AND APTLY DEFINED by Dlowan, our troops would not be in those countries.
It is clear to anyone who thinks about these matters, that the countries in which our troops are located ACCEPT the presence of our military in their countries.
Do you know what the meaning of Realpolitik is, Cicerone Imposter?
That is another good term to define. Dlowan has taught us to define. For that, I thank him.
Yeah, CI, Cuba and Iraq dearly love our presence on their soil.
Yes, of course they turned over the soldier that raped that girl. They turned over the soldier because there was an agreement that in certain cases, the local authorities would judge the offenses and not the military. The same thing has happened in Germany and South Korea. It has happened because there was A POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL ARRANGEMENT MADE BETWEEN THE US MILITARY AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Similar arrangements will be made in Iraq.
Will anyone then say that the Iraqis do not have full sovereignty? If they do then the Japanese and South koreans do not have full sovereignty either.
I have long waited for the Cuban army to rise up to expel the US from Guantanamo> I wonder why they haven't done it yet?
Most of those countries you list that have our military presence do so by choice. They welcome the fact that our tax dollars provides them with security. Those countries also have political sovereignty. The US may try to influence them, but do not have control over their politics. A recent poll of Iraqis show that the majority of Iraqis do not want the US to stay in Iraq. I think the number was 6 out of 10 wants the US out. As for Cuba, Castro has no choice. We are unwelcomed guests.
I hope that Cicerone Imposter is not implying that Lakdhur Brahimi, THE UN'S REPRESENTATIVE, will choose people for the Iraq council which will stand still for, as Cicerone Imposter puts it, "control over their politics".
I don't think that Kofi Annan would allow that, or is Cicerone Imposter saying that the UN is in the pocket of the US?
Hardly.
I didn't make any of the claims you made, so you needn't credit me with what the UN will do or not do. You can draw any conclusion you like, but don't credit me with it.
Fair enough, Cicereone Imposter. I will then make the statement.
You said that "the US may try to influence them(other countries where our troops are stationed) but they do not have control over their politics."
You did say that, did you not, Cicerone Imposter?
Then you must be saying that even though Brahimi, the representative from the UN will choose the council members, the US will still have, as you said-"control over their politics"
I do not know why you are saying this.
If you can, please provide proof that after June 30, after the Brahimi choice of Council Members, the US will have control over their politics.
Now, please remember that Mr. Dwolan insists on careful definition. You must supply the definition of the following:
The US
control
politics.
If you can't or won't your statement is meaningless.
Here's my read on it.
They will hand over power on June 30, in the fervent hope that the new government asks the coalition to leave Iraq, a request which they will honour immediately. That's the only possible avenue for the shrub to escape the cesspool he's created.
An interesting read, Wilso.
If it hasn't happened by the end of October, can I call you on it?
My read is that Bush will stay the course.
We shall see.
The reason it won't happem, Wilso, is that the Iraqis are not stupid. They realize that when there is a power vacuum, it will be filled by someone.
An all out civil war between the Sunnis( Saddam's people who are infuriated that they have lost all of their prerogatives) the Shiites( the largest group in Iraq who suffered greatly under the heel of Saddam and many Sunni leaders) and the Kurds( Northern Iraqis who were gassed by Saddam who do not want a return of Sunni hegemony.
No, I don't think the Iraqis do not know that a power vacuum would be disasterous for their country.
Now, if someway or somehow, a viable Iraqi army,containing enough persons from all three major groups shows early enough that they can maintain order, the US may leave.
All observers say, however, that this will not, and, indeed, cannot happen until next year at the earliest.
McGentrix wrote: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.
Dear god McGentrix - the world is coming to an end! I believe this is the second time we have agreed on something within the week!
mporter wrote:Fair enough, Cicereone Imposter. I will then make the statement.
You said that "the US may try to influence them(other countries where our troops are stationed) but they do not have control over their politics."
You did say that, did you not, Cicerone Imposter?
Then you must be saying that even though Brahimi, the representative from the UN will choose the council members, the US will still have, as you said-"control over their politics"
I do not know why you are saying this.
If you can, please provide proof that after June 30, after the Brahimi choice of Council Members, the US will have control over their politics.
Now, please remember that Mr. Dwolan insists on careful definition. You must supply the definition of the following:
The US
control
politics.
If you can't or won't your statement is meaningless.
Nah - I only insist on that when someone is trying to play silly buggers with definitions - most don't do that.
You know, stuff like saying "full" when meaning "partial" and such.
mporter wrote:An interesting read, Wilso.
If it hasn't happened by the end of October, can I call you on it?
Sure.
I don't think Bush wants to be there then because it'll probably cost him the election. Of course if the new government doesn't ask him to leave, then he's trapped.
I hope they don't, because I believe the US should try to fix the mess they've created, while at the same time, I don't believe they've got the ability to do it. Quite a quandary.
Mr. Dlowan: You are the one who insists on definitions. Please define insulting.
Or I will do it for you.
"characerized by rudeness or insolence"
Since you appear to be a master of definitions, would you be so good as to characterize the following for me:
"Well, since you reference a Time issue which apparently does not exist"
I hope that you are not so far gone that you do not view that statement as supremely insulting since it says that I am a liar.
That statement was made by Mr. Blatham on May 14th. He did not have either the courage or the courtesy to apoloigize.
I find your admonitions incredibly insulting to me in light of the evidence above.
Now, it is your turn to apologize.
I get a strong impression that GWB will not put politics ahead of principle in any serious matter. That's the primary reason I continue to support him.
In minor things he of course will defer to political implications. But I have been impressed that he chooses his battles and I have been impressed with the battles he has chosen to fight.
Nah - I dinna call you a liar and be wrong.
I have naught to do with an argument you and Blatham may be having.
What I did say was how wonderful it would be if you a. admitted rebuttal, without b. then going on, in the same post, to insult others and turn the point to un-related matters.
And - you did part a. - the grace of which I acknowledged thankfully, by blushing, which is hard, under all the fur.
However, you were not able to manage part b., which was, as I said, surely merely an oversight? I but edited a tad for you.
The grace of the part a. possibly confused me into believing that the other was in error?
Perhaps I was wrong.
My apologies for sadly esteeming you too highly, if so. I shall mend the error of my ways immediately.
