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

Murders, one murder .... and how many people think keeping score makes a point. Please try to concentrate.

Zomeone zomewhere made this point before: if the US is so keen on spreading democracy and freedom in other nations (a good thing, in my book) why did it so assiduously work to subvert the democratically-expressed will of the people in Chile?

Another conundrum.

McTag, sir, you bring up a very intelesting issue of the US involvement in Chile and "democracy." A simple web search brought up the following link.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/jan-june01/chile_2-20.html

A conundrum for someone who assumes nothing could have changed the last 30 plus years. How the hell do make a jump back to cold war decisions of the late 60's early 70's when assessing intentions of different President 3 decades later? How far are you willing to reach to blame America no matter what?

Gel, your last several posts don't even make sense. All kidding aside, I think maybe you should go see your doctor.

Is that a step up or a step down from 'idiotic'?
What is it called when a person can't argue fact so they argue the opponents personal worth? As a 'preemptive measure be prepared to back up what you say because saying it does not make it true. .

That would be called Argumentum ad hominem... but that's not what I'm doing. Your posts do not make sense. No amount of concentration will deliver any coherent message in these disconnected words:
That's gibberish... as if you'd forgotten to include some of the key words to your thought, whatever it may be.

We should bring "democracy" to Iran.

Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'

The US believes Iran is years away from developing nuclear arms
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do to that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.

Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.

The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means.

Enrichment activities

Mr Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed.

"If such an attack takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our fuel cycle and make nuclear fuel," he said.


Uranium enrichment is Iran's right

Hassan Rohani
Iranian nuclear negotiator

"But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk," he added. "They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks."

Mr Rohani said that not even the offer of lifting US sanctions or security guarantees from Washington would be enough to make Iran abandon its enrichment programme.

"Uranium enrichment is Iran's right," he said.

Iran has agreed to suspend all its enrichment activities during negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.

The US is not taking part in negotiations, and wants Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.

The European countries would like to use a package of incentives to induce Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, but Tehran has said it is disappointed with what is on offer so far.

It says it can only continue talks for a matter of months, not years.

Enriched uranium can be used to produce nuclear power, but the technology behind it can also be used to develop weapons-grade nuclear material.

I trust our government 100% - not.




Andrea Mohin/The New York Times
Jayne Steubing said her husband, Carl, was wrongly told he was healthy enough for an experimental cancer treatment.



IN HARM'S WAY
Research, Fraud and the V.A.



Andrea Mohin/The New York Times
Mr. Steubing, a World War II veteran, became violently ill after treatments at the veterans hospital in Albany. He died in 2002.

Paul H. Kornak, who posed as a doctor for veterans, in 1999.


IN HARM'S WAY
Abuses Endangered Veterans in Cancer Drug Experiments
By DEBORAH SONTAG

Published: February 6, 2005


ALBANY - Carl M. Steubing, a decorated Battle of the Bulge veteran whose experience of war made him a pacifist but also instilled in him a zest for living life at full tilt, took his diagnosis of gastroesophageal cancer in 2001 as a challenge.

With a thatch of white hair and a rich baritone voice, Mr. Steubing, at 78, was not ready to succumb to illness. A retired music educator and wedding photographer, he remained active as a church choir director, expert cook, painter, golfer and fisherman. He was married to a woman 24 years his junior, and they had seven children and three grandchildren between them.

Mr. Steubing jumped at the chance to participate in an experimental drug study at the Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany, believing it offered him the hope of surviving longer. The research coordinator, Paul H. Kornak, told Mr. Steubing that he was "just a perfect specimen," with the body of a man half his age, according to Jayne Steubing, Mr. Steubing's widow.

He was not, though. Because of a previous cancer and poor kidney function, Mr. Steubing was not even eligible to participate in the experiment, according to government documents. Mr. Kornak, however, brushed that obstacle aside. He altered Mr. Steubing's medical records, according to prosecutors, and enrolled him in the study. He also posed as a doctor.

In 2001, Mr. Steubing endured about six periodic treatments with an aggressive three-drug chemotherapy combination. Each infusion made him violently ill and forced his hospitalization. He died in March 2002.

Last month, at the federal courthouse in Albany, Mrs. Steubing glared at Mr. Kornak, 53, as he pleaded guilty to fraud, making false statements and criminally negligent homicide in the death of an Air Force veteran, James DiGeorgio. When Mr. Kornak admitted to falsifying the medical data of "subject initials CMS" - Carl M. Steubing - Mrs. Steubing's face crumpled.

Mr. Kornak, who is scheduled to be sentenced in May, also agreed to cooperate in a widening investigation of the hospital's cancer research program. From 1999 to 2003, when he worked there, scores of veterans were, at the least, put at risk. But allegations of carelessness, fraud and patient abuse in the hospital's cancer research program predated Mr. Kornak, and employees say that administrators not only dismissed their concerns, but harassed them for standing up for the veterans.

"Research violations were a way of life at Stratton for 10 years," said Jeffrey Fudin, a pharmacist at the hospital. "Stratton officials turned a blind eye to unethical cancer research practices and punished those who spoke out against them. The whole Kornak episode could have been prevented."

According to Mr. Kornak's lawyer, E. Stewart Jones, there was a "clear systems failure," permitting a research culture where "rules weren't followed, protocols weren't applied and supervision was nonexistent."

It was also a culture whose descent into criminality forced the Department of Veterans Affairs nationwide to reckon with what an internal memorandum in 2003 described as "systemic weaknesses in the human research protections program, especially in studies funded by industry."

Excluding simple chart reviews, about 80 percent of the department's human research is financed by industry. The private sector pumps considerable cash into the system. In Albany, it accounted for $500,000 of the $1.15 million in research funding in 2004.

Mr. Kornak, who declined to be interviewed, does not appear to have derived financial gain from his fraud. The Albany hospital's research program, however, stood to benefit from the enrollment of patients, pulling in $5,000 from the drug company Aventis for Mr. Steubing's participation.

Although veterans knew him as "Dr. Kornak," Mr. Kornak was not licensed to practice medicine. Mrs. Steubing first learned this a year after her husband's death when she read an article in The Times Union of Albany.

Bill, I understand that you believe that because Saddam Hussein was an evil murderous dictator and so we were justified in invading Iraq in order to put an end to the suffering of the Iraqi people.

I agree that Saddam was a bad murderous dictator.

I disagree that reason alone was enough to go to war with Iraq.

I also disagree that at the time we invaded there was no other alternative which should be litmus test of going to war at any time.

But mostly I disagree with the Iraq war for the following reasons.

I believe that the Bush administration in order to invade Iraq diverted our resources that we need to fight our war on terror because Iraq does did not have any significant direct ties to AQ. I believe the administration in order to invade Iraq did so with a series of deceptions that in my book is inexcusable. Not only do I believe the war was unnecessary and diverted our resources but it also created a lot of tensions with our allies when before right after 9/11, most of the whole world was on our side and was willing to help us fight the enemy. We need others in today's world as CI post up above amply demonstrates. Since the start and lead up to the Iraq war the whole world has become divided and there is no trust and that is the complete blame of the Bush administration in first wanting to go to war with Iraq and then saying anything and everything in order to win over support for the war and then labeling people that disagreed with the war.

I disagree wholeheartedly with their way of handling detainees of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am glad that the elections went better than I thought it would and that people got to vote who wanted to vote. However, as more days pass it is clear and plain that there is trouble up ahead with the newly elected powers and neighboring countries.

No matter how much people want to dress up nice, the Iraq war has been a disaster and it is not going to end successfully any time soon. Meanwhile it is costing our country billions and billions of dollars and it has already cost both Iraq and the coalition thousands of lives. Day to day conditions has not improved one iota despite it being two years under our occupation.

I understand your position, I just wish you and others would be more courteous and understand those of us who are against the war are not just nay sayers who just want to tear down the administration for any reason, but we really believe what we are saying just as much as you believe what you are saying. I have read and studied on this for around two years, so I don't believe I am half as ignorant as you proclaim. I just simply do not agree with you.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=58456&d=3&m=2&y=2005

A Magnificent Day for Iraq"Everyone says that this is the first free elections in Iraq for fifty years. That is another lie. There has never been one single free election in the long history of the Arabs ever. This is the first one."

While I realize the MSM (and some here) will, in the coming days, be reporting on the role Islam will play in Iraq's newly emerging democracy, I think the message above would be a good one to keep in mind.

It's my hope and belief that Sistani will not elect to follow the Iranian model, but be instrumental in helping to create a constitution that is based on laws that respect the rights of freedom of worship.

We need to remember that these people risked their lives to participate in a vote and as long as Parliament and heads of government continue to be chosen in fair elections, the choice remains theirs.

I personally don't think they risked their lives to be thrust into a "mullacracy" such as Iran's where 13-year old girls are stoned and teenage girls are hung without mercy, although we'll see much hand-wringing in the MSM telling us otherwise.

Pinochet was a bad and murderous dictator, but he was supported by the US.

I do not agree with Bill that the Cold War applied to South America, and I am wondering perhaps maybe the aim in Iraq is not as stated, or maybe it will change fast if the "wrong kind" of democracy develops.

Bill, I'm not seeking to blame the US for everything, don't say that. I'm only seeking to open up your mind a crack.

McTag, You are expecting miracles; it'll never happen.

Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG

Published: February 6, 2005


NAJAF, Iraq, Feb. 4 - With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.

Exactly how Islamic to make the document is the subject of debate.

At the very least, the clerics say, the constitution should ensure that legal measures overseeing personal matters like marriage, divorce and family inheritance fall under Shariah, or Koranic law. For example, daughters would receive half the inheritances of sons under that law.

On other issues, opinion varies, with the more conservative leaders insisting that Shariah be the foundation for all legislation.

Such a constitution would be a sharp departure from the transitional law that the Americans enacted before appointing the interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. American officials pressed Iraqi politicians drafting that law in early 2004 to guarantee equal rights for women and minorities. The Americans also persuaded the authors to designate Islam as just "a source" of legislation.

That irked senior Shiite clerics here, who, confident they now have a popular mandate from the elections, are advocating for Islam to be acknowledged as the underpinning of the government. They also insist that the Americans stay away from the writing of the new constitution.

Many factors could force the clerics to compromise their vision. The alliance of Shiite politicians in the constitutional assembly could splinter as its members vie against one another for power and trade favors with rival politicians like Dr. Allawi. Too strong a push for a Shiite religious state could prompt opposition from the former governing Sunni Arabs, a minority that already has said it feels disenfranchised, or from the Kurds, who can exercise veto power over the new constitution.

And Shiite politicians, recognizing a possible backlash from secular leaders and the Americans, have publicly promised not to install a theocracy similar to that of Iran, or allow clerics to run the country. But the clerics of Najaf, the holiest city of Shiite Islam, have emerged as the greatest power in the new Iraq. They forced the Americans to conform to their timetable for a political process. Their standing was bolstered last Sunday by the high turnout among Shiite voters and a widespread boycott by the Sunni Arabs, and the clerics will now wield considerable behind-the-scenes influence in the writing of the constitution through their coalition built around religious parties.

Once official election results are tallied, that coalition - a huge slate of mostly Shiite candidates called the United Iraqi Alliance - is expected to take the largest share of seats in the 275-member National Assembly. The assembly is charged with appointing an executive government, drafting a constitution and preparing the country for full-term elections by the end of the year.

"The constitution is the most dangerous document in the country and the most important one affecting the future of the country," said Alaadeen Muhammad al-Hakim, a son of and spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Said al-Hakim, one of the most senior Shiite clerics in Iraq. "It should be written extremely carefully."

The leading Shiite clerics say they have no intention of taking executive office and following the Iranian model of wilayat al-faqih, or direct governance by religious scholars. But the clerics also say the Shiite politicians ultimately answer to them, and that the top religious leaders, collectively known as the marjaiya, will shape the constitution through the politicians.

Some effects are already being felt locally. In Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, where one of Ayatollah Sistani's closest aides has enormous influence, Shiite religious parties have been transforming the city into an Islamic fief since the toppling of Mr. Hussein. Militias have driven alcohol sellers off the streets. Women are harassed if they walk the streets in anything less than head-to-toe black. Conservative judges are invoking Shariah in some courts.

Allawi said before the Iraqi elections that "there will be no turbans in the government of Iraq."

That would be good, but he might find it hard to keep the clerics out. Looks like he will.

Reports read (by me) today from Basra, already there is an islamist clampdown and women not seen much outside, those who are must wear burqua and be accompanied by a man- or be physically chastised by vigilantes.

Joe, the only reasoning you need to know for us waging freedom in Iraq is 9/11!

9/11, man!!!

REMEMBER 9/11!!!

Long live the State.

The Transitional Administrative Law ultimately said only that Islam was "a source" of law, although it accepted that nothing that "contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" would be legally acceptable. According to Article 7A:

Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

Walter, It depends on "their" interpretation of what Islamic Law is, and how it's enforced.

I guess "democracy" is in th eye of the beholder.
****************************************
Cheney Turns Aside Concerns on Emerging Iraqi Government
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

Published: February 6, 2005


WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - Vice President Dick Cheney turned aside today concerns that the emerging government in Iraq might be strongly Islamic and might set more restrictive standards for women's rights than for those of men.

Leading Shiite clerics in Iraq, whose religious parties appear likely to take power in the new constitutional assembly, have been pushing for a clear Islamic aspect to the country's new constitution, with such matters as marriage and divorce made subject to Koranic law, and daughters liable to receive only half the inheritances of sons.

But Mr. Cheney appeared cautious and sanguine when asked about this.

"We have to be very careful here," he said on the television program "Fox News Sunday." "We're trying to forecast what an as-yet-unformed government is going to do."

"This is going to be Iraqi, whatever it is," he said. "It's not going to be American. It's not going to look like Wyoming or New York when they get their political process all put together."

Mr. Cheney also noted that the leading Shiite political parties had shown no interest in setting a deadline for a United States withdrawal, despite pressure from Sunni parties with which they have been negotiating.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sought to clarify the exact conditions for an American withdrawal from Iraq.

President Bush said Wednesday in his State of the Union address that success would come when Iraq had become "a country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself."

But Mr. Rumsfeld said that the language about self-defense referred not to Iraqis' ability to protect against external attack but rather to maintain internal peace.

The comment seemed to raise questions. A United States decision to pull out and leave behind an Iraq without a fully armed, trained and effective army and air force - thus vulnerable to attack from a neighbor like Iran - would be controversial. But for Iraqis to achieve the ability to deter attack from a neighbor like Iran could take "many years" more, Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Yet, he appeared at the same time to indicate that an American withdrawal would not ignore any threat from Iran and Syria, saying, "We don't know the extent to which they're going to be unhelpful or helpful."

Mr. Cheney said he doubted that Iraqi Shiites would be strongly influenced by what he said was the failed theocratic approach of their Shiite brethren in Iran. "The Iraqis have watched the Iranians operate for years and create a religious theocracy that has been a dismal failure," he said.

Still, an Iraqi constitution based on Koranic law would depart sharply from the transitional law the Americans enacted in Iraq before appointing an interim government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

American officials had pressed for guarantees in that document of equal rights for women and minorities, as they had done earlier in Afghanistan; the transitional Iraqi document cites Islam only as "a source" of legislation.

But some senior Shiite clerics, confident of a broad mandate from the Jan. 30 elections, want Islam to be the official underpinning of the government.

How that plays out as Iraqi politicians come together in a constitutional assembly this year is far from certain. Fundamentalist Shiites will be vying with secular-minded groups, and must negotiate with Kurds, who can exercise veto power over the new constitution, and with Sunnis, whose inclusion is essential to Iraqi cohesion.

A move toward a Koran-based constitution would, nonetheless, be alarming for some in the United States.

Mr. Cheney said he was comforted by the public pronouncements of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's revered Shiite cleric, who had made clear that "he doesn't believe clerics should play a direct role in the day-to-day operations of government."

Mr. Cheney also expressed a strong preference for a diplomatic resolution of the tensions over the Iranian nuclear program that have given rise to speculation about possible administration planning for a limited military strike. Both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld appeared to play down recent suggestions that the Bush administration might be preparing for possible military strikes on suspected Iranian nuclear targets.

This remains completely irrelevant.
Where is there room for disagreement? Allende was a Socialist. I'll not defend our interference there but lets not start pretending the Cold War between us and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics isn't the reason we had a problem with the Chileans electing a Socialist to power.

That would be easier to believe if you weren't trying to saddle Bush with sins that took place before he entered politics, in a place he probably couldn't point out on a globe. It is partisan foolishness to suggest a conflict in South America 3 decades ago can provide any insight into Bush's motivation today. Check your premise, or get checked. :wink:

Taken out of context, or as you have done, applied without context, it is gibberish ..... the same could be done with your statements. I may have overlooked the problem, retention deficit disorder ..... yes, that would fit the scenario quite nicely .... as you were.