"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

Mr. Dlowan: May I utilize your expertise?

First, you have taught the necessity of definition. I think I have made it clear that I agree with you on that point.

Now, you speak about "sidetracks to unrelated topics"

The Kantian imperative, of which I am sure you are familiar, states that one should act as if the entire world would use that action as a rule for the future.

I will go along with your rule but, I must advise you, it must pertain to all--"No unrelated topics".

Now, I will be so bold as to set up a Kantian imperative for all.

When an idea is rebutted with what the poster says is evidence, that alleged evidence must be rebutted or that evidence stands.

What say you on that addition, Mr. Dlowan, or are you so rooted in your own universe that you cannot consider other ideas?

I will go along with your a. need for definition( as you may remember, I said it was a wonderful idea)

I will go along with your admonition b, No sidetracks to unrelated topics. I will endorse that one also.

But, what about the need to either rebut the evidence or "alleged" evidence posted on the topic under discussion?

Without pointing out any miscreants, there are some on these posts who have been directly confronted with evidence, documentation and quotes and they have chosen to completely ignore the alleged evidence, documentation and/or quotes.

Are you fair minded enough, Mr. Dlowan, to add that to your list?

Lol - I have no thoughts either way, Mporter. I merely note your common habit of ignoring it when you have been successfully argued against, and moving on to an unrelated diatribe.

I attempt to make no general rules for this - most do not do as you do, so there is seldom a need.

You had no need to respond re the rebuttal, nor do you need to respond re the failure to eschew the added diatribe.

Given that you were gracious re the rebuttal, I commented on the lack of similar grace re the diatribe.

Listen or no - 'tis your choice - but do not attempt to draw me into your spiderweb of further rule-making - fun though it might be to follow you into that labyrinth!

I fear my thread might break....

To misquote a famous character: "I'm a Rabbit, not a Minotaur!"

dlowan is a Miss-or maybe a Ms.

Dear Lady_ I am confused by your statements. It would not be the first time I have been confused by a lady.

If I may quote Ophelia in Hamlet- Act I Scene III, when she is speaking to her brother who has admonished her to guard her virtue.

"But, good, my (sister), Do not as some ungracious pastors do,show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles like a puffed and reckless libertine,(her)self the primrose path of dalliance treads, and recks not (her) own rede>"

I must ask, dear lady, do you believe that definition is essential to good discussion on these posts? I thought you had so indicated. I am sorry if I misinterpreted you but I will clearly state that I do think that definition is essential to good discussion on these posts.

I must ask again, dear lady, do you believe that staying on message and not sidetrack to unrelated topics is essential to good discussion on these posts? I thought you had so indicated. I am sorry if I misinterpreted you but I will clearly state that I do think that staying on topic is essential to good discussion on these posts.

I will boldly, and without your blessing, dear lady, state unequivocally, that it is essential above all, for honest debaters to respond to the alleged evidence or documentation to the matter at hand, before they write anything else.

Avoidance of evidence and documentation may be the wise route for the timid to take but it cannot be viewed by fair minded persons as a winning strategy.
An argument unanswered stands until proven false or misleading.

I ain't no lady.

Oh, sorry, did you say something?

No lady?" Sorry, I did not mean to misspeak.

It reminds me of an old joke>

Who was that lady I saw you with last night?

reply: That was no lady, that was my wife.

mporter, I like Joe Biden. Though I don't agree with everything he says. Mostly because he was in favor of the Iraq war to begin with.

There are more than just democrats asking those key questions that didn't answered last night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53141-2004May24.html?nav=headlines

brand
To whom is this 'symbolism' directed? Do you think Iraqi citizens will be much persuaded by the US president saying "full" sovereignty when they see every day that it is not so? Do you think they will be much impressed by him using this symbolism to help them think properly about their own present and futures?

Realistic to not hand over total sovereignty at june 30?...no kidding. The point is that this is a purposeful deceit through abuse of language.

And the second point relates to whom that deceit is directed. Your symbolism notion makes no sense if it is directed at Iraqis....they are going to despise one more callous misrepresentation. It sensible only if one sees it being directed at a home audience, for PR reasons. And more of that audience really ought to yell about the callous misrepresentation.

Confusion seems to reign among allies over the meaning of Iraqi sovereignty! Britain's Tony Blair said today that, after 30th June, Iraqi Ministers would have overall control of British forces.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell said today that America would retain control over American forces.

If both are correct, than a new Iraqi government would have the authority to order British troops to attack American ones.

Even the most charitable or loyal supporters must find comprehension of coalition policies beyond them.

I disagree, blatham.

I calls 'em as I sees em....and I sees this one differently than you do.

The symbolism being directed toward the Iraqi's yes.

You see it as negative and that only animosity could grow from it, I see it as saying this the the beginning of us leaving, they'll like that.

Try to be more positive and not so much pistoff.

Now, Mr. Blatham, the Canadian, says that this is a purposeful deceit thorough the use of language.
Mr. Blatham acts as if he knows all about our History. In truth, he appears to know very little about our political history.

I am sure that Mr. Blatham knows nothing, nothing about how back channels operate.

In his book, "The Dark Side of Camelot" , the author Seymour M. Hersh( a name that has appeared in the newspapers quite a lot lately) reveals that the stunning victory of the Liberal idol, President John F. Kennedy told the country that he made Khruschev blink during the missle crisis.

John F. Kennedy did not tell the truth.

Mr. Blatham doesn't know that there are back channels--poor man.

Hersh reveals the following:

"Sorensen's published account was a half-truth. As he knew, and would not reveal for twenty-seven years, the crisis was resolved when Bobby Kennedy, on behalf of his brother, held a last minute meeting with Dobrynin and made a SECRET ARRANGEMENT TO GIVE NIKITA KHRUSCHEV THE TRADE HE WANTED--JUPITER MISSLES REMOVED FROM TURKEY IN EXCHANGE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SOVIET MISSLES FROM CUBA...WITH A MISSLE TRADE ON THE TABLE, BOBBY KENNEDY ASKED DOBRYNIN AND KHRUSCHEV FOR SECRECY EXPLAINING THAT ONLY TWO OR THREE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON WERE AWARE OF THE BEHIND THE SCENES BARGAINING..."THE PRESIDENT CAN'T SAY ANYTHING PUBLIC IN THIS REGARD"

pp. 365-366



It would appear that President Bush is being far more forthcoming in this Iraq crisis than the Camelot president was in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And Kennedy gloried in the credit that he made Khruschev Blink. He did no such thing.

Mr. Blatham's outrage is revealed when he says:

"More of that audience really ought to yell about the callous misrepresentation"

I must remind Mr. Blatham that most Americans don't take advice from a country like Canada or Canadians. Since Canada has no first amendment, they arw apparently stifiling speech with the Bill C-250 which is a repressive anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada.

Mr.Blatham apparently doesn't know that American voters make up their own minds and don't need Gestapo like tactics ( Bill C-250) to stop their mouths.

Canada, as Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has said, is a PLEASANTLY AUTHORITARIAN COUNTRY"

Thank you, Mr. Blatham, but we need no authoritarisans from the North to tell us what to do.

Blatham
Why is the plan for Iraq so evil as you seem to think? You keep screaming about lies and more lies. I think Bush would love to explain the whole thing but how would you explain the complexities that are shaping up?
This is a work in progress just as the war was. As I said earlier, it took 6 YEARS after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown before the process of ratification of our own constitution. Incidentally, our constitution was written in secrecy and remained a secret for nearly 4 years. What the hell is your problem with the way Bush is doing this?

Below is just a little goodie about the "Sovereignty of Australia"?????

The next installment will be about the constitution of Canada-----what kind of complexities will I find there? And how many years did it take? I have n't been too concerned about Canada because of your insignificance but now you've got my back up.




The Commonwealth is Born

The establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia is commonly taken as the date of Australia's independence from the United Kingdom, but matters are more complicated than that. The Constitution provided the Commonwealth with all the powers associated with a sovereign state, including the power to engage in foreign affairs and to raise its own army. But the United Kingdom still retained the power to engage in foreign affairs on behalf of Australia, and to make laws for it. In the early years Australia continued to be represented by the United Kingdom as part of the British Empire at international conferences.

Also, the Constitution provided that the British monarch be represented in Australia by a Governor-General, who was originally appointed on the advice of the British, not the Australian, government, and was generally a British aristocrat. Finally, the Constitution provided that any law of the Australian Parliament could be disallowed within a year by the British monarch (acting on the advice of British ministers), though this power was never in fact exercised. In summary, the constitutional position of the Commonwealth as a whole in relation to the United Kingdom was, originally, the same as that of the individual colonies before Federation.

Perception. I am afraid you have wasted your time if you think Mr. Blatham will respond to your excellent piece.

He can't handle anything that is longer than a short paragraph and he won't acknowledge that your sources are accurate. On May 14th Mr. Blatham called me a liar, in effect, when he stated that I referenced a Time Magazine Article that does not exist.

I don't know whether that response was because of laziness or inabilty, but he will not address your contention head on. I don't believe that he is able to do so.

Here are some interesting excerpts from yesterday's news conference that may be of help in understanding the situation and the polls:

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY BRIEFING WITH
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK KIMMITT,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR COALITION OPERATIONS;
AND DAN SENOR, SENIOR ADVISER, CPA

LOCATION: BAGHDAD, IRAQ

TIME: 10:09 A.M. EDT
DATE: MONDAY, MAY 24, 2004

Yes. Go ahead. Yes, sir.

Q Hi, it's Steve Komarow with USA Today. Two related questions.

There's this survey, as you know, coming out this week from Mr. Delamey (ph) and the Strategic Studies Institute here in town that shows extraordinarily wide support for Muqtada al-Sadr even in Sunni areas of the country now. And I was wondering if you could sort of explain that because, of course, you all have made a great effort to portray him as an outlaw and as a bad guy.

And the second part of my question is, several surveys now have shown among the Iraqi public that CPA/U.S./coalition credibility is very low with the Iraqi people. Could you two comment on those two things?

MR. SENOR: Sure. I haven't seen the study or the poll, so I don't want to comment specifically on it until I have a chance to. But broadly speaking, let me say this.

We have seen a series of polls over the past number of months that say something that's not inconsistent with your second point, which is that a majority of Iraqis, while they're grateful for the liberation, they want the occupation to end. And the Coalition Provisional Authority and the coalition forces right now are leading this occupation, and they want the occupation to end. We think it's understandable. It is not nice to be occupied. That is not a desirable state to be in. It is not nice to be occupiers. There's nothing we like less, probably, than being in the position of occupier.

But the third thing we see time and time again in these polls is, while they want the occupation to end -- a majority of Iraqis -- if you ask them specifically vis-a-vis their personal security, do they want the coalition forces to leave, they say no. That's because they recognize that there's still a significant terror threat in this country. They recognize that the Iraqi security forces right now, while albeit having performed bravely and courageously in many cases, are not in a position to defend against this terror threat themselves. And so they want the political occupation, if you will, to end, but they still want the security support provided by coalition forces.

And that's why we think June 30th is so important because what June 30th says to the Iraqi people is you're now in charge. The future of Iraq will now belong to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people and Iraqi leaders will be in control of the day-to-day decision-making of their government. That accommodates the second point of that paradox, the "we want the occupation to end." It will be Iraqi officials, not coalition officials, responding to Iraqis when there are problems in the country. It will be Iraqi officials being held accountable for the day-to-day ups and downs in their country, not coalition officials. And as I said, that addresses the second point in the paradox. At the same time, it addresses the third concern because our security forces will still be here to help continue to stabilize the situation and help defend against the terror threat.

So if I were to sum up what we see over and over in the polls, it's sort of "glad to be free; sorry to be occupied; please don't go." And so we're trying to find the right balance between -- among all those three, and we think the June 30th scenario, handing over sovereignty but continuing to play a security role here, strikes the right balance.

Link

The only evidence I've seen that the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave comes from the terrorists. It is because of the terrorists that I believe the Iraqis have not asked us to let them take over now.

Currently in their infant democracy, the relationship is not unlike that of parent/child. The child may throw temper tantrums and scream "I hate you!" but would be terrified if the parents withdrew their love and hands on support.

It won't be long before Iraq will feel confident that they can fly on their own and the U.S. will properly toss them out of the nest.

I think we are getting far more thank yous from the Iraqi people than we are getting criticism. It's just that the liberal media won't report the good stuff.

The next big thing: patronize Iraqis and call them children

C'mon Craven, surely you recognize a metaphor when you see one. You don't really believe that Foxfyre is patronizing them or calling them children, do you?

Or, is the next big thing misinterpreting peoples statements to purposefully make them look different than intended?

Bet he treats his new car like a child.

great post- Tarantulas- The Iraqis don't want us to leave....
Some on these posts do not remember that during Desert Storm, those who helped the Coalition in any way were mercilessly treated by Saddam after we left.

It would not be surprising for the Iraqi people to fear the same unlikely scenario.

We will stay and the Iraqis( except for the die hard Baathists around Baghdad and the small fanatic group of AlQaeda) will welcome our presence.

After all, we have been in South Korea( a Peace Treaty was never ratified) since 1950--that's 54 years.