0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 04:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Cyclo, How come you didn't meet up with us last October when we had a Gathering in Austin?

Missed the memo, I guess. Next time - I promise! ... Next time someone is having a meetup is as good as any! Cycloptichorn
Idea
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 04:59 pm
Well why write a new constitution ... they can have ours... we aint using it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 05:06 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Well why write a new constitution ... they can have ours... we aint using it.
Walter doesn't want us to. I infer that he thinks that might undermine the authority and autonomy of the Iraqi people. Laughing
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 09:14 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
... I wonder if we are going to take all this "freedom freeing" frenzy zeal into a country that needs it like Saudi Arabia and free the people there from the royal regime that has oppressed the people there for years and give them democracy? ...
Good question! We may not have to if the Saudi royals (or the Saudi people themselves), reacting to Iraqi and Afghanistani success in securing democracy, act their own initiative establish a democracy in Saudi Arabia.


Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia first and use that country as 'light' for other countries to follow into democracy?

I think the answer is simply the close ties the Bush administration (and other previous administration, even clinton) has with the Saudi regime kept them from naturally following the trail of the 9/11 hijackers that actually did harm our country. I am amazed that the bush administration took time out to go to Afghanistan in a half hearted attempt to get Bin Ladden before going to Iraq.

It is good that the Iraqi's got to vote, but it still made no sense to invade Iraq when you consider all the other countries that still don't get to vote and are under just as oppressive regime's as Saddam Hussein if not worse. China comes to mind and there are a whole host of others.

There are also a lot more terrorist and ties to AQ in other countries with a lot more "harboring" support than Iraq had if taken in the context that you defined "harboring support."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 09:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Well why write a new constitution ... they can have ours... we aint using it.
Walter doesn't want us to. I infer that he thinks that might undermine the authority and autonomy of the Iraqi people. Laughing


I infer that walter would be right on as well.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 12:14 am
This thread has gone quiet. Where are all the mouth-foaming, rabid right-wingers?

Here is a look at the other side of the coin, sent to me overnight from America. quote

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

And today , this excerpt from TruthOut...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105W.shtml

"...The American media is painting these newly-minted Iraqi voters as flush with the thrill of casting a ballot. In truth, however, some other more pressing motivations lay behind their rush to the polling places. Dahr Jamail, writing for Inter Press Service, reported that "Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies. Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar, who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad, had said, 'I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut. If that happened, me and my family would starve to death.'"

"Will Vote For Food' is not a spectacular billboard for the export of democracy...
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 12:29 am
On BBC radio yesterday there was a report of 40% of monies being used in Iraq as unaccounted for, under US governance..
From memory (notoriously unreliable) $8 billion is missing.

Has anyone else seen a report on this?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 12:37 am
Here is is:

Iraq reconstruction funds missing

The missing $8.8bn is more than 40% of Iraq's oil revenues
Almost $9bn (£4.7bn) of Iraqi oil revenue is missing from a fund set up to reconstruct the country.
The BBC's File On 4 programme has learnt that out of over $20bn raised in oil revenues during US-led rule, the use of $8.8bn is unaccounted for.
US government auditors criticise the Coalition Provisional Authority for failing to manage the money properly.
In one case, auditors say the key to a safe holding millions of dollars was kept in an open backpack in an office.
"There was insufficient internal control to assure that money was spent for the benefit of the Iraqis, as the UN Security Council resolution mandated," said the auditors' chief of staff, Ms Ginger Cruz.
'Bribes demanded'
"We contend that since the CPA was in control and did have a responsibility to be an effective steward of those monies, that it was to be expected that there was more supervision of what happened to that money," she said.
Even allowing for the chaos in the aftermath of war, the auditors still believe the management of the money should have been a great deal tighter.
An earlier auditors' report from last year revealed evidence of wholesale carelessness with large amounts of cash.
On one occasion, $1.4bn had to be transported to a bank in three helicopters, as it weighed 14 tons, but no deposit slip was obtained when it was paid in.
It [the liberation of Iraq] was such a key moment and a great opportunity was lost by the way it was handled
Claude Hankes-Drielsma
The CPA has also come under attack for failing to prevent widespread fraud.
One US company is accused of massively inflating its profits by setting up sham companies to send fake invoices which the coalition paid.
Others are alleged to have demanded dubious commissions which then came out of Iraqi funds.
Even some Coalition officials are said to have openly demanded bribes of up to $300,000 in cash.
File On 4 reporter Gerry Northam explained: "Many Iraqis are angry at the way the Coalition handled funds, particularly the money from their own oil, and especially where inexplicable amounts ended up in the hands of foreign businesses."
Context 'misunderstood'
Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a former British advisor to the Iraqi Governing Council, which worked alongside the Coalition, said the lack of control of funds was a further blow to the United States.
"It is most unfortunate, given that the liberation of Iraq was a great achievement. It was recognised as such by the Iraqi people, but the subsequent handling of events was a disaster.
"It was such a key moment and a great opportunity was lost by the way it was handled."
In response to the report, the former head of the coalition, Ambassador Paul Bremer, said the auditors had failed to understand the context in which the Authority was operating.
Western accounting standards could not be applied in the midst of a war, he said.
Listen to this edition of File On 4 on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 1 February at 2000 GMT.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm


(McT) I'm just remembering the self-righteous posturing of many Repubs over the UN oil-for-food programme errors.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 01:32 am
It's only money. Besides it's ours. Why are you concerned about it?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 02:30 am
revel wrote:
It is good that the Iraqi's got to vote, but it still made no sense to invade Iraq when you consider all the other countries that still don't get to vote and are under just as oppressive regime's as Saddam Hussein if not worse. China comes to mind and there are a whole host of others.

I don't know, maybe Iraq was chosen for the reason the president said 80 or 90 times was the reason it was chosen - a fear that Iraq was still secretly developing WMD. When the president tells you a few dozen times why he is invading someplace, that's a clue.

Why not China, then? China (a) never promised us to disarm, and (b) already has huge stockpiles of WMD so cannot be invaded without starting Armageddon.

The reasoning seems pretty straightforward.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 04:19 am
Lest we forget...


Quote:
"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
"Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

"by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times -- Sept. 4, 1967

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

"According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

"The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

"A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

"The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government."
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 05:03 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
It is good that the Iraqi's got to vote, but it still made no sense to invade Iraq when you consider all the other countries that still don't get to vote and are under just as oppressive regime's as Saddam Hussein if not worse. China comes to mind and there are a whole host of others.

I don't know, maybe Iraq was chosen for the reason the president said 80 or 90 times was the reason it was chosen - a fear that Iraq was still secretly developing WMD. When the president tells you a few dozen times why he is invading someplace, that's a clue.

Why not China, then? China (a) never promised us to disarm, and (b) already has huge stockpiles of WMD so cannot be invaded without starting Armageddon.

The reasoning seems pretty straightforward.


Emphasis mine.

The Bush administration would have you remember that they did not invade Iraq out of any fear, it was knowledge. They said they knew not only that the weapons were there, but they also said, Rumsfeld in particular, that they knew where they were. So please remember when this President tells you a few dozen times why he is invading someplace he could be completely and utterly wrong.

Your remark on China is a classic Catch 22. Luckily,, for you, revel didn't specifically mention North Korea which has promised to dis-arm and continues to this day selling nuclear technology to places like Iran. (00ps, there's another one.) So carrying forward the straightforward reasoning, we can invade Iran but not North Korea because while the Iranians are merely dangerous, the North Koreans have achieved the coveted Armageddon excuse level of protection, thus: Gather enough weapons and despite all claims to end tyranny around the world, we shall leave you to yourselves.

It's a proud, proud day.

Blatham: Yes, I thought I had read these election reports before but I thought it was a dream of smoke and jungle-ness.

Joe( they repeated the lie until, finally, it was washed of untruth)Nation
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:12 am
georgeob1 wrote:
It's only money. Besides it's ours. Why are you concerned about it?


Are you serious with this question? We sent money to reconstruct Iraq and it is missing. That raises questions of where and why it is missing. Congress voted for that money to be used there and if it is not, that is a big issue.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:16 am
One thing I am slowly learning is to not make predictions. I don't know how this is going to turn out.

I hope it turns out well even if it turns out to be an Islamic State if that is what the majority of the people who turned out to vote wants.

But wouldn't that be a bit of an irony?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:19 am
brandon, joe nation answered good enough for me about President Bush and his statements.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:25 am
blatham wrote:
Lest we forget...


Quote:
"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
"Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

"by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times -- Sept. 4, 1967

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

"According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

"The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

"A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

"The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government."


That's cute, but what does it have to do with Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:40 am
Quote:
I hope it turns out well even if it turns out to be an Islamic State if that is what the majority of the people who turned out to vote wants.


To paraphrase what ican said earlier: If the Iraqi people want an Islamic state, they will have an Islamic state. If they don't want one, they won't have one.

Do you really think the George and Rummy show would sit still for an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law as it is interpreted by the imams?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 07:55 am
Kara, I don't really know. I wouldn't have thought that was their intention when they were forming this idea back in the 90's with the PNAC, but maybe now they don't really have a choice.

Maybe it won't be an Islamic State, who really knows anymore? I do know that women are wearing veils more than they did under Saddam Hussien's rule and that Christian churches have been under attack since then too.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 09:30 am
Quote:

Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
1. Election Fallout Ash-Sharq al-Awsat: The Asso...
Election Fallout

Ash-Sharq al-Awsat: The Association of Muslims Scholars, a hardline Sunni clerical group, announced that it rejects the legitimacy of the elections, insofar as they were conducted under the shadow of occupation. AMS spokesman Umar Raghib disputed the reports of a high election turnout, especially in Sunni Arab areas. He said that turnout was low in Ramadi, Mosul and elsewhere. He maintained that "the popular base for the popular rejection of the Occupation is expanding."

Az-Zaman reports that 150,000 angry Iraqi Christians in Ninevah Province came out to protest on Monday. The ballot boxes arrived in their areas too late on Sunday, and they say they were promised that they could vote until 10 am Monday to give them time to cast the ballots. In the end, however, the Electoral Commission declined to make an exception for them, and they just won't get to vote. Iraqi Christians have been the victims of terrorist attacks, many have emigrated, and many fear Kurdish control over their regions.

Turkmen and other groups in Mosul also bitterly complained that often ballot boxes did not arrive in time, or at all, depriving thousands of the franchise.

The Turkish government is clearly very worried about possible Kurdish control of the oil city of Kirkuk.

Whether the Bush administration can take a hint and begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq when a new, sovereign parliament is seated, the coalition of the willing is not willing to overstay its welcome. Hungary has already decamped, and Holland, the Ukraine, Poland and others are drawing down their troops or leaving altogether.

I suggested on the Lehrer News Hour on Monday that now would be a good time for the Coalition forces to simply withdraw from Basra province. There don't seem to me to be the kind of violent incidents in Basra that require the British presence. Surely the Iraqi forces could deal with it, especially since the Shiites of the south are likely to be loyal to an elected government blessed by Grand Ayatollah Sistani. If foreign troops were removed from Basra, it would be an important step toward full resumption of sovereignty by Iraq.

My article on Iraqi politics after the elections, "The Shiite Earthquake", is up at Salon.com.

Radical Islamist violence is spilling over into Kuwait. This is a worrisome development. There are rumors that the guerrillas in Iraq are selling their munitions abroad, and one wonders if the turmoil in the Sunni Arab areas of Iraq is beginning to spill over onto neighbors.

More comments on the election by me in an interview with David Crumm of the Detroit Free Press.

Robin Wright of the Washington Post, among American journalism's canniest observers of the Middle East scene, covers the controversy over Bush's statement on the Iraq elections. She kindly quoted me:


' Analysts also noted that the Bush administration initially resisted the idea of holding elections this soon and only succumbed under pressure from Iraq's most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The original plan, designed by then-U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, was a complicated formula of regional caucuses to select a national government, which would write a constitution, and then hold the elections. "It was Sistani who demanded one-person, one-vote elections. So to the extent it's a victory, it's a victory for Iraqis. The Americans were maneuvered into having to go along with it," said Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan. '



I'm told Paul Begala quoted the passage on Crossfire. I only bring it up because I think this sort of episode shows the way information is circulating between the blogging world and traditional media.

Speaking of various media, gluttons for punishment can find my recent appearance on C-Span here on the Web.

Apparently I even have views on Squarepants Spongebob, who I am sure is straight.


Tue, Feb 1, 2005 0:42
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 09:43 am
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/144/1547/640/bush%2Bdog.jpg

This man has his finger on the button ..... run away run away run away
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.01 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 07:17:07