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

Way to go Obill. I sure didn't think about Costa Rica.

Note that the #2 political party is the Social Christian Unity Party; however having 'Christian' in the name does not always indicate any particular religious leanings.

The most interesting thing is they limit their president to one four-year-term in his lifetime. That has some very appealing advantages I think.

Factoid:

Quote:

Costa Rica is a democratic republic. Under the 1949 constitution, all citizens are guaranteed equality before the law, the right to own property, the right of petititon and assembly, freedom of speech and the right of habeas corpus. The constitution also divides the government into independent executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch is composed of the president, two vice presidents and a cabinet. The legislature is the National Assembly, composed of 57 members (diputados) elected by proportional representation. National elections are held every four years, on the first Sunday of February. Under a constitutional amendment enacted in 1969, a president may serve only one four-year term during his lifetime. Diputados also are elected for four years and may serve a second term four years after the first ends. The largest political party is the National Liberation Party (PLN). Its main rival is the more conservative Social Christian Unity Party.

Information supplied by the Green Arrow Guide

0 Replies

A moment of silence for all those innocent holiday makers who got killed as their hotels were bombed.

A moment of silence for Ken Bigley the british hostage who has been executed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3727658.stm

Mr Bush, Mr Blair - you have blood on yr hands.

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

A moment of silence for all those innocent holiday makers who got killed as their hotels were bombed.

A moment of silence for Ken Bigley the british hostage who has been executed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3727658.stm

Mr Bush, Mr Blair - you have blood on yr hands.

That's quite the outrageous statement now isn't it? Islamic terrorists kidnap people trying to help Iraq become an independant country, then behead them with a knife and you have the nerve to say Bush and Blair are at fault?!

Un-****-believable!

How about putting the balme where it lies? With those animals that perpetrate these murders!

0 Replies

There is no way to explain or justify those who are angry at or hate Bush, Blair etc. and seem to have not even unpleasant feelings toward terrorists. Ditto for those who blame Bush, Blair etc. and not the truly evil people who do truly evil things. Sometimes I really do think values are so screwed up we'll not recover.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre

Actually, I agree with au re how countries got democracy.

That's even true for Germany - you perhaps forgot that the first democracy here has been the so-called Weimar Republic.

The Weimar Republic, a republic that survived less than 15 years, died with Hitler's assumption. Germany's second democracy was set up by force: the force applied by the Allies.

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

A moment of silence for all those innocent holiday makers who got killed as their hotels were bombed.

A moment of silence for Ken Bigley the british hostage who has been executed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3727658.stm

Mr Bush, Mr Blair - you have blood on yr hands.

Terrorism, and the acts of terrorists, existed before Bush - and will exist after he is gone.

0 Replies

Bush and Blair have the blood of every American, Iraqi, Brit and who ever else was killed and maimed in the "Bush War" on their hands. It was and is the "wrong war at the wrong time".
I saw an editorial the other day that asked this question. Would Bush have been so fast to go to war if we still had a conscripted army. And if he did would he have a ghost of a chance of being reelected or even standing for reelection?
To the first I could not say with any assurance what the idiot would do. However, to the second he would have to do what LBJ did. Run and hide.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

And whom did Iraq shelter?

Iraq sheltered al Qaeda and other terrorists both before and after 9-11.

Don't forget the Americans who were murdered by al Qaeda prior to 9/11/2001.

dlowan wrote:

And why - by the logic you appear to embrace - has the USA not invaded Saudi Arabia?

The Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Saddams in Iraq both refused US demands to stop sheltering al Qaeda. The Saudi and Pakistani governments did not refuse our demands to stop sheltering al Qaeda. Instead the Saudi and Pakistani governments began hunting down al Qaeda.

Ah, but what about Syria and Iran? They continue to shelter al Qaeda. If they don't stop that sheltering they will be next after Afghanistan and Iraq are rescued.

0 Replies

Ican
Your motto should be or maybe it already is. Today Iraq tomorrow the world. Evil or Very Mad

There was a little man with a funny mustache who seemed to have the same idea. He ended up dead in a bunker. No names. :wink:

0 Replies

Quote, 'Terrorism, and the acts of terrorists, existed before Bush - and will exist after he is gone." You forgot to complete the sentence. "...at a factor of 100 percent plus."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no way to explain or justify those who are angry at or hate Bush, Blair etc. and seem to have not even unpleasant feelings toward terrorists. Ditto for those who blame Bush, Blair etc. and not the truly evil people who do truly evil things. Sometimes I really do think values are so screwed up we'll not recover.

Blaming Bush for opening Pandora's box does not equate to a lack of unpleasant feelings for terrorists.

0 Replies

Well said, c.i., right on the money as usual.

Ican, you are being tedious or deliberately disingenuous. Saddam and BinLaden were not allies, you have been told this, they were enemies. So whether Al Qaida had people in Iraq before, who can say, but not with the support of Saddam. So, reasons given for invasion, lies.

Correct c.i., Bush increases terrorism, and gives the terrorists more victims to snatch and the kidnappers' outrages more publicity.

I do not agree with Gautam and Mr Bigley's brother that Blair has blood on his hands for this latest murder. It is wrong to blame Blair for the unwillingness to give in to hostagetakers' demands. This is surely the correct policy.

But I blame Blair for being a lying, duplicitous, vainglorious, criminal of a man. I hope he is made to answer for his actions. The mood in the country at least has turned against him.

0 Replies

McTag, I agree; it's wrong to blame Blair for the latest beheading of a Brit. People who do are missing in the logic arena.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Ican
Your motto should be or maybe it already is. Today Iraq tomorrow the world.

Naa! It's, yesterday Afghanistan, today Iraq, tomorrow maybe Syria, day after maybe Iran. After that, I got my eye on space (e.g., the moon and Mars). That's more worth conquering than anything on this earth. But, first things first.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Saddam and BinLaden were not allies, you have been told this, they were enemies.

I have repeatedly posted evidence that Saddam sheltered al Qaeda. Whether that does or does not qualify them as allies is nothing more than a semantic distraction. You say that Osama and Saddam were enemies. Define what you mean by enemies and then supply evidence to support your contention. I will then again supply evidence that Saddam sheltered al Qaeda.

McTag wrote:

So whether Al Qaida had people in Iraq before, who can say, but not with the support of Saddam.

Support? Define support and then supply evidence that Saddam didn't provide it.

By the way, www.m-w.com is my source for the definition of sheltered.

0 Replies

Breaking News on english Al-Jazeera.net (presently down):

Former Saddam deputy Tarek Aziz died in US captivity.

0 Replies

Still there:

US denies his death

0 Replies

Some of the administration's strongest allies are expressing their disappointment with the administration's planning in Iraq. For example, former head of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer, said on Monday that "We never had enough troops on the ground" in Iraq.[1]

Today, in the New York Times, Bremer attempted to limit the damage to the administration. Bremer - in a piece entitled "What I Really Said About Iraq" - claimed he only said it "would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting."[2] Despite the title, that isn't what Bremer said. Bremer said there weren't enough troops at any time. He made similar comments in a 9/16/04 speech at DePauw University, saying, "The single most important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."[3]

CNN reports a senior Defense Department spokesperson said that "Bremer never asked for more troops."[4] But on 7/1/03, Knight Ridder reported, "The top American administrator in Iraq [L. Paul Bremer], confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops."[5]

Sources:
1. "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Whashington Post, 10/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61557.
2. "What I Really Said About Iraq," New York Times, 10/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61558.
3. "Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels," Whashington Post, 10/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61557.
4. "Bremer: More troops were needed after Saddam's ouster," CNN, 10/05/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61559.
5. "Bremer requests more troops as violence, tension escalate," Mercury News, 7/1/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=61560.

0 Replies

You must not have read No. 2 up there Au. Bremer was and is 100% behind the President and explains why the commanders on the ground in Iraq did not want additional troops at the time Bremer recommended them.

0 Replies

Bremer is backtracking.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know