0
   

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

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 05:18 am
Hey, what about me?

I wouldnt put you in the same category McT..

I've come to the conclusion that this whole global war on terrorism is complete bunk. The US is just doing what it wants around the world because it can. It needs the GWOT as a cover story. When bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996 he made it quite clear his motives were not cultural or religious, but political. He wants US meddling in middle east countries to stop. Of course this serves US interests as going after bin Laden or al Qaida is the excuse they need for meddling in other countries' affairs.

(note correct use of apostraphe Smile )
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 05:22 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
(note correct use of apostraphe Smile )



OOoo
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 09:37 am
The fact that former UN ambassadors object to his nomination should only reinforce the fact that Bolton is the right man for the job. That organization needs to be shaken up, and Bolton might be the guy to do it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:06 am
amazing

I can use the apostrophe, but everyone is too kind to point out I can't spell it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:11 am
"Bolton might be the guy to do it."

What's he going to do if he doesn't get his way, resign?

He's been nominated ambassador, not secretary general.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:18 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
amazing

I can use the apostrophe, but everyone is too kind to point out I can't spell it.


You are so long here on this site, Steve, that by now you really should know: only ladies and gentlemen can become members here!

(Btw: that's not 'kind', but 'well educated' and 'polite'. Heavens above! How smashing!)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:25 am
Ticomaya wrote:
The fact that former UN ambassadors object to his nomination should only reinforce the fact that Bolton is the right man for the job. That organization needs to be shaken up, and Bolton might be the guy to do it.


According to AP 59 former US-American diplomats opposed Bolton.

(Besides, the UN does have personal with diplomatic passports, but no explicit ambassadors as far as I could find out.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:31 am
I can see the desperation in how president Bush is doing his best to ruin the economy of the US and the world. The Euro vs dollar in the oil markets hasn't helped the US price of gas one bit, and our Congress/Bush keeps talking about saving Terri Schiavo's life. The dollar is also dead, and it's on a artifical support system; too bad Americans don't understand much about finance or economics.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:50 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Bolton might be the guy to do it."

What's he going to do if he doesn't get his way, resign?

He's been nominated ambassador, not secretary general.


Good question. What is the concern over Bolton if he is powerless?

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
The fact that former UN ambassadors object to his nomination should only reinforce the fact that Bolton is the right man for the job. That organization needs to be shaken up, and Bolton might be the guy to do it.


According to AP 59 former US-American diplomats opposed Bolton.

(Besides, the UN does have personal with diplomatic passports, but no explicit ambassadors as far as I could find out.)


Yes, Walter ... I know. Bolton is nominated to be a "UN Ambassador" in the same sense those folks were.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:52 am
"(Btw: that's not 'kind', but 'well educated' and 'polite'. Heavens above! How smashing!)"

I was going to say that people who don't know how to use the apostrophe probably don't know how to spell it either. But being polite myself, I just call them "kind" for not pointing out my mistake.








Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:59 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, Walter ... I know. Bolton is nominated to be a "UN Ambassador" in the same sense those folks were.


Sorry, then I misread the articles.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 11:02 am
"What is the concern over Bolton if he is powerless?"

I didn't say he was powerless, only suggested he has no more power than any other permanent member of the security council.

My concern over Bolton isn't actually to do with him. He has particular views on the UN, (e.g. that it should be subordinated to the will of the US) but that's irrelevant.

My "concern" is that his appointment is just another example of George Bush's snubbing of the international community.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 11:13 am
Steve, thanks for the great link!

And McTag, thanks for reminding me of the whole Euro issue. It's just another piece of the puzzle that people can't seem to put together in their heads when they are blinded by ideology.

Here's a piece of news that I'm surprised noone else has posted here yet, given the nature of it:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/29/iraq.main/index.html

(empahsis mine)

Quote:
Acrimony dominates Iraqi assembly session

Newly elected lawmakers fail to agree on speaker


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi National Assembly failed to choose a speaker Tuesday after arguments broke out among lawmakers and reporters were ordered to leave the session.

Assembly members expressed outrage that no agreement had been reached after two sessions.

"The Iraqi people who defied the security threats and voted -- what shall we tell them? What is the reason for this delay?" politician Hussein al-Sadr told Reuters. Al-Sadr is a member of the coalition led by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

Eventually, the assembly's acting speaker ordered reporters out of the session and cut off a video feed from the proceedings. Members then huddled in a closed-door meeting.

A Western diplomat watching the session called the decision to cut the video feed "an embarrassment."


Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, the interim national security adviser, said he expected the 275-member transitional body to reconvene Sunday and pick a Sunni Arab for speaker before proceeding to choose a president and confirm a prime minister and Cabinet.

Al-Rubaie said the Sunnis have a chance to put forth a consensus candidate before then. If they don't, the assembly will go forward and vote for one of the 17 Sunnis in the assembly.

Hashim al-Hasani, the interim industry and minerals minister and a Sunni, said Sunnis plan to meet over the next few days to decide on a candidate.

The assembly has failed to form a new government since the January 30 election of its members. Naming a speaker was to be the first step forward.

Millions of Iraqi voters risked attacks by insurgents to vote in the election.

Taxi driver Mohammed Ahmed Ali told Reuters: "It is a farce. If they couldn't form a government till now, how will they lead a country?"

On Monday, acrimony heightened when interim President Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni Arab Muslim, declined an invitation to the speaker post by members of the United Iraqi Alliance and Kurdish bloc, which placed first and second, respectively, in the January vote.


Officials from these coalitions had expressed a desire to have a Sunni Arab as speaker, who serves as assembly president, to broaden the Sunnis' participation in the new government.

Most Sunnis, who held power under Saddam Hussein, stayed away from polling places in January. Much of the insurgency is taking place in the so-called Sunni Triangle, west of Baghdad.

Assembly sources said that 80 percent to 90 percent of positions for a new government already have been negotiated, with a few key security posts up for grabs.

Attacks target security forces

Insurgents struck Iraqi security forces Monday, killing the head of a Baghdad police station and four other officers in separate attacks, police said.

Col. Abdul Kahrim Fahad, head of the Balat al-Shouhada police station, and his driver were gunned down in a drive-by shooting.

Earlier Monday, a roadside bomb exploded near an Iraqi police patrol in southwestern Baghdad, killing one Iraqi policeman and wounding five other people, including three Iraqi police.

In another attack Monday, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed three police officers and wounded two civilians south of Baghdad in Musayyab, said Hilla police chief Qais Al-Azzawi. The police were protecting pilgrims walking to the holy Muslim cities of Najaf and Karbala, he said.

Also south of Baghdad in Salman Pak, Iraqi security forces Monday came upon what the U.S. military called "a large terrorist base." The forces encountered light resistance and captured more than 90 suspects, the military said.

Other developments

A U.S. soldier was killed Monday in a "nonhostile" incident, the military said. No other details were immediately available. Since the start of the Iraq war, 1,528 U.S. forces have been killed in Iraq.

Insurgents armed with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades engaged American soldiers conducting a weapons search in the northern city of Tal Afar on Monday, the military said. The soldiers returned fire and killed one of the insurgents, the military said. During Tuesday operations, the soldiers arrested four people in nearby Mosul. On Monday, five people were arrested south of Mosul and another in Tal Afar.


Three Romanian journalists were kidnapped Monday night in Baghdad, said their employer, Prima TV, and a Western security source. (Full story)

An independent U.N. investigative committee is expected to clear Secretary-General Kofi Annan of a conflict of interest in the now-defunct Iraqi oil-for-food program. But it is expected to criticize his oversight of the aid program, a source familiar with the report said Monday. (Full story)

CNN's Kevin Flower, Ayman Mohyeldin, Aneesh Raman and Zoran Stevanovic contributed to this report.


Hopefully they can get the dissent works out before the real problems begin...

I'd like to see what happens when they turn the oil standard in Iraq back to the Euro. It will be interesting to see what the US does, or if they are even allowed to consider such a thing...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 11:34 am
InfraBlue wrote:
Terrorist training camps were established in an area of Iraq beyond the Iraqi government's control at the time. The Kurds who had de facto control over the area were well prepared to deal with these terrorists. It was the US that ultimately hindered their move against these terrorists. The invasion and occupation of the entire country in the name of removing an isolated group of terrorists in an isolated area of Iraq was ham-handed and gross overkill. The invasion and occupation of the entire country in presumption that no more terrorists will establish there is asinine.
Thank you for your opinion.

I infer that you think control an absolute. That is, if one doesn't have control, one cannot get control.

In Saddam's case, he was requested in 2002 and 2003 by the US to get control of the AQ (i.e., al Qaeda) bases in northern Iraq. Unlike his previous ventures into the so-called Autonomous Region, Saddam chose not to venture into these AQ bases in northern Iraq in order to get control of them.

Despite the Kurd's taking control of these same bases in the late 1990s, AQ regained control of these bases and re-established their operation in 2001.

Saddam chose to not grant the US's request, so the US removed him and his regime in order to get and attempt to maintain control of the these same AQ bases in northern Iraq, until such time as a democratic government of the Iraqis own design could take control these bases in northern Iraq and prevent their use by AQ.

Which of the numbered statements in the following quote do you agree with and why, and which ones do you disagree with and why?

Quote:
1. The justification for our invasion of Iraq is derived from the proposition, facts and logic that follow.

2. Proposition: Our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that knowingly provide sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases.

I assume Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism.

3. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.

Sources: 9/11 Commission Report; Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to UN 2/5/2003.

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistanis own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraqis own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report.

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 11:57 am
"One sees things from a much different perspective at an altitude of 45,000 feet."

One certainly does Ican, in your case I would suggest lack of oxygen.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:00 pm
Lack of perspective as well; we all look like ants from up there, and who cares about ants?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:10 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Cyclo You made some good points about the dollar/euro factor being a big influence on the war. You've probably seen this, but its well worth reading for anyone such as Ican who hasn't.
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm


I read the article! I infer from the article that there are people who believe we invaded Iraq to ensure Iraqi oil is sold for US dollars instead of euros and to solve various other presumed conflicts between US dollars and euros.

This is a presumption that the co-occurrence of two sequences of events (e.g., Iraqi War, and presumed euro-dollar conflicts) is evidence that one of those sequences caused the other. How about this for cause and effect? The Iraqi war caused the presumed euro-dollar conflicts. Laughing

Wait a minute! How about: the continuing Afghanistan war caused the Iraq war. Or, How about this: our invasion of Iraq was caused by the UN Oil-for-Food scam; or the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere caused the US to invade Iraq. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:14 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"One sees things from a much different perspective at an altitude of 45,000 feet."
One certainly does Ican, in your case I would suggest lack of oxygen.

Pressurized aircraft provide more than adequate oxygen and a more global view. In your case, you are too low to distinguish the real from the imagined.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:17 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lack of perspective as well; we all look like ants from up there, and who cares about ants? Cycloptichorn

Laughing What do you have against ants?

Actually, from "up there" we look at reality instead of imagining it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:20 pm
You can put as many smilies into your posts as you want, Ican, but it doesn't change the fact that noone believes what you write anymore.

Why? Because you, for some odd reason, believe that words spoken by liars provide reason or justification for anything, whilst continually ignoring the immense levels of corruption that are evident in our highest levels of gov't.

I'm really tired of talking to you, so I think I'm going to ignore you for a while. Cheers though!

Cycloptichorn
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 09:23:46