0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 10:33 am
Early reports from Iraq indicate a great turnout for the vote on the Constitution. Even the Sunnis turned out at 70+%. The counting of the votes is in process after one of the most non-violent days in Iraq in recent times.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 10:36 am
sources: agencies, here: reuters, Associated Press & CNN
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 01:10 pm
Walter,

You made today's voting in Iraq sound more optimistic than the last voting in Deutschland!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 01:19 pm
The Sunni turnout to vote is a positive action that may help Iraq's future, but there are still several issues that are not settled. Let's hope it turns out better than some of us expect it to. We must not also forget that the US democracy was not an easy one either. It's the progress towards democracy that counts - IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 01:20 pm
Well, I've no idea how many percent voted 'no'.

(And in the German election we at least 12 more alternatives than just 'yes' or 'no' :wink: )
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 01:28 pm
12 alternatives beats zero any day of the week. Wink
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 03:21 pm
WHO REALLY OWNS MIDDLE EASTERN LAND?

LET'S BEGIN WITH PALESTINE! WHO REALLY OWNS LAND IN PALESTINE?
The 1st inhabitants of it ? They are all dead!
The 1st conquerors of it? They are all dead!
The last conquerors of it?
The 1st takers of it? They are all dead!
The last takers of it?
The 1st to rule it?
The last to rule it?
The 1st ordained it?
The last ordained it?
The 1st given it?
The last given it?
The 1st to buy it?
The last to buy it?
The 1st to possess it?
The last to possess it?

I say: the last to possess it!
What do you say?

To help you decide, here's an abbreviated chronology of the land now called Palestine (all years are approximate). The Encyclopedia Britannica, “Palestine,” is the source.


Quote:
7800 BC:First building structures.
7000 BC:First Jerico fortifications.
2000 BC:First Canaanite Culture.

1300 BC:First Israelite Culture.

1100 BC:First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).

Jews start ruling part of Palestine

1000 BC:Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except Philistra and Phoenicia).
950 BC:Solomon King of Israel.
721 BC:Israel Destroyed, but Judaea Continued.
516 BC:2nd Temple in Judaea.
333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers Palestine.

Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.


161 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to All Palestine Plus.

Jews start ruling Palestine.

135 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
40 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
73 AD:Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.

Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.

638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem.

Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.

1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.

Arabs stop ruling part of Palestine.

1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador to Egypt Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded--116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded--3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded—1936,38,39 AD:135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1944 AD:Jews murdered Lord Moyne.
1947 AD;UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State.
1948 AD:Civil war breaks out between Jews and Arabs.
1948 AD:State of Israel conquers part of Palestine.

Jews start ruling part of Palestine; and, Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 03:46 pm
Amigo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
No polling places? Sounds like Florida, doesn't it?
Or Ohio or anywhere else we've fixed elections.

The Democrats tried and failed to fix the elections in 2000 and in 2004. The Democrats failed in both elections to get enough dead people to vote enough times. So naturally they blaimed their own failures on the Republicans, like they always do.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 03:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The Sunni turnout to vote is a positive action that may help Iraq's future, but there are still several issues that are not settled. Let's hope it turns out better than some of us expect it to. We must not also forget that the US democracy was not an easy one either. It's the progress towards democracy that counts - IMHO.

Shocked

Well I'll be a ring-dang-do Exclamation I agree with CI! Surprised
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 02:12 pm
Quote:
Chief Iraq investigator found dead

Sun Oct 16 2005

The senior military police investigator in Iraq, Captain Ken Masters, has been found dead at his British military base in Basra.

A statement issued by the Ministry of Defence said: "On Saturday 15 October 2005, the body of Captain Ken Masters was discovered in his accommodation in Waterloo Lines, Basra.

"He was Officer Commanding 61 Section, Special Investigation Branch, Royal Military Police.

"He had been responsible for the investigation of all in-theatre serious incidents, plus investigations conducted by the General Police Duties element of the Theatre Investigation Group.

"Ken Masters was aged 40, married with two children and had served with the Royal Military Police since 1981.

"He was commissioned from the ranks in 2001 and served most of his career with the Special Investigation Branch."

The MoD did not say how Captain Masters died.

His death will be investigated by the Royal Military Police, though the MoD said the circumstances were not regarded as suspicious.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 08:07 pm
1. Osama Bin Laden "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"-1996;
and,
2. Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
[scroll down to find them both]

3. Al-Qaida Statement Warning Muslims Against Associating With The Crusaders And Idols; Translation By JUS; Jun 09, 2004
Al-Qaida Organization of the Arab Gulf; 19 Rabbi Al-Akhir 1425
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00035.html

excerpts from al Qaeda in their 1996 fatwah wrote:

Our youths believe in paradise after death. They believe that taking part in fighting will not bring their day nearer; and staying behind will not postpone their day either.

These youths believe in what has been told by Allah and His messenger (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) about the greatness of the reward for the Mujahideen and Martyrs; Allah, the most exalted said: {and -so far- those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish. He will guide them and improve their condition. and cause them to enter the garden -paradise- which He has made known to them}. (Muhammad; 47:4-6). Allah the Exalted also said: {and do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay -they are- alive, but you do not perceive} (Bagarah; 2:154).


excerpt from al Qaeda in their 1998 fatwah wrote:

I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped.


excerpt from al Qaeda in their 2004 fatwah wrote:

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 11:05 pm
Yesterday's report said there were "no suspicious circumstances" concerning this death, which is jargon for "we believe he killed himself".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 10:48 am
AP is reporting that the Iraqi electoral commission says it will recheck "unusually high numbers" in constitutional referendum results from certain areas of the country to make sure the poll meets international standards.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 11:55 am
Quote:
Iraq delays final result of constitutional referendum for 'several more days'

AFX


BAGHDAD (AFX) - Iraq's independent electoral commission said it was verifying the ballot count from the country's constitutional referendum and would have to delay the announcement of a final result for 'several more days.'

'The commission board announces that despite its intention to announce global preliminary results as soon as possible it needs several more days to complete this difficult and complex operation after finding that the figures from most provinces were too high,' the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq said in a statement, apparently referring to turnout levels.

'This will require re-examination, comparison and verification because they are comparatively high compared with international averages for elections,' the statement said.

The electoral body added that it would 'choose urns at random and examine them, in particular where the results were too low or too high compared with the general average.'

wai/txw/tc
Copyright AFX News Limited 2005.
Source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 01:55 pm
How many innocent Iraqis were killed? From the BBC:

US strikes kill '70 Iraq rebels'
Helicopters and warplanes bombed two villages near Ramadi in western Iraq on Sunday, killing about 70 people, the US military says.
It said all the dead were militants, although eyewitnesses are quoted saying that many were civilians.

One of the air strikes hit the same spot where five US soldiers had died on Saturday in a roadside bombing.

The US statement said a group of insurgents was about to place another bomb, although local people deny this.

An F-15 warplane fired a precision guided bomb at the group, killing about 20 militants, the US statement said.

Several witnesses quoted by Associated Press said they were civilians who had gathered near the wrecked US vehicle and 25 had died.


Coalition forces continue to aggressively pursue terrorists whose aim is to kill Iraqi civilians and coalition forces in and attempt to disrupt the political process
US military statement

The victims were either standing around the wreck or scavenging bits of metal or equipment, witnesses said, as often happens after a successful insurgent attack.
In a separate incident, the US military said it had killed a group of gunmen who had opened fire on a Cobra attack helicopter from the village of al-Bu Faraj.

An F/A-18 warplane bombed a building where they were hiding, and 40 insurgents were killed, the military said. Witnesses quoted by AP said at least 14 of the dead were civilians.

"Coalition forces continue to aggressively pursue terrorists whose aim is to kill Iraqi civilians and coalition forces in and attempt to disrupt the political process," the US statement said.

Constitution vote

Ramadi, in the mainly Sunni Arab province of Anbar, is a stronghold for anti-US insurgents.

Initial results show that very few local people cast ballots during Saturday's referendum on Iraq's new constitution - either out of opposition or fear of militants', reprisals correspondents say.


Electoral officials continued counting millions of ballots on Monday, as partial results seemed to indicate the draft text was assured of approval.
Opponents of the constitution needed two thirds of voters in any three of Iraqi's 18 provinces to vote "No" for the proposals to fail.

That threshold was passed easily in the predominantly-Sunni Anbar and Salahuddin provinces, according to the partial results, but not in the mixed Sunni-majority provinces Diyala and Ninevah.

Sunni leaders are reported to have responded angrily, accusing US and Shia Muslim officials of fraud.

Final results from the vote, which has divided the country along ethnic and sectarian lines, are expected later this week. The head of the election commission said the turnout is running at more than 60%.

President Jalal Talabani has issued a decree setting 15 December as the date for the next vote in Iraq's political timetable, to elect a new parliament.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4349032.stm

Published: 2005/10/17 11:24:11 GMT
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:06 pm
MALIGNANCIES & METASTASIS

The middle-eastern-malignancy (e.g., al Qaeda) and their accomplices mass murder civilians at a far higher rate than does any malignancy of the human body. Like malignancies of the human body, the middle-eastern-malignancy must be exterminated to prevent its future metastasis (i.e., spread) and future murders.

Some Fundamental Principles of Malignancies :
1. Exterminate malignancies as soon as they are detected and before they murder again.
2. Waiting to exterminate malignancies until after they grow and spread is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.
3. Knowing that one’s predecessors have taken actions that produced and nurtured malignancies in various hosts is not a valid reason for not exterminating malignancies.
4. Being given false reasons for exterminating malignancies is not a valid reason for not exterminating malignancies for the right reason.
5. Planning all along to exterminate malignancies while claiming otherwise is not a valid reason for not exterminating malignancies.
6. Having other motives for exterminating malignancies than stopping the growth and spread of malignancies is not a valid justification for not exterminating malignancies for the right motives.
7. Distrust of the motives of someone who advocates exterminating malignancies is not a valid justification for not exterminating malignancies.
8. Humiliating a malignancy while it is incarcerated is not a valid justification for not exterminating malignancies.
9. Failure to place a malignancy on trial before exterminating it is not a valid justification for not exterminating malignancies.
10. Defacing a malignancy’s property is not a valid justification for not exterminating malignancies.
11. Fear that exterminating malignancies spreads malignancies it is not a valid justification for not exterminating malignancies..
12. Negotiating with malignancies does not stop malignancies from growing and spreading.
13. Giving malignancies what they want does not stop malignancies from continuing to mass murder civilians and continuing to grow and spread, because that is what they want.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:42 pm
Quote:
P is reporting that the Iraqi electoral commission says it will recheck "unusually high numbers" in constitutional referendum results from certain areas of the country to make sure the poll meets international standards.


Walter, I heard this today as well. I wonder what it means.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 06:50 am
Iraq gets a constitution - and unity?


By GEORGE WILL, Washington Post Writers Group


WASHINGTON -- (The first civilian leader of the U.S. occupation, Jay) Garner was talking about putting in ninety days in Iraq and then heading home....At dinner in the Hilton restaurant (in Baghdad in April 2003)...Garner laid out his timetable: reconstruct utilities, stand up ministries, appoint an interim government, write and ratify a constitution, hold elections. By August, Iraq would have a sovereign, functioning government in place. There was a stunned silence. Someone at the table said, "Which August?" -- George Packer, "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq"
Eccentric language often is symptomatic of peculiar thinking, and when the history of America's Iraq intervention is written, attention should be paid to the interveners' frequent use of the locution "to stand up." It carries the thought that things -- institutions such as armies and ministries, and even entire nations -- might be knocked over, as happens to lamps at rowdy parties, but then one simply stands them back up.

Over the weekend Iraqi voters stood up a constitution. Before the vote, President Bush's national security adviser, Steve Hadley, said that, "Whatever Iraqis decide, this is progress." Perhaps.

The administration's theory, which cannot be dismissed as foolish just because it is dogmatically cheerful, or because history contains ominous counterexamples, is that there could not have been a bad outcome from last weekend's vote: The mere fact of voting, by drawing Iraq's tribal factions into politics, enmeshes them in the democratic process and its civilities.

Perhaps. But from 1929 through 1933 the turnout in German elections was especially high, because so were the stakes. In Germany's turmoil the issues included which mobs would control the streets and which groups would be persecuted. In Iraq's turmoil the issues include, or are thought by many Iraqis to include, the same things.

The Bush administration deserves high praise for overseeing the drafting and ratification of Iraq's constitution, another hurdle in the administration's transformative war to remake an entire region. The administration should, however, refrain from further strained analogies between Iraq today and America at its constitutional founding.

Yes, of course, America's Constitution was a second try, after a stumbling start with the Articles of Confederation. And, yes, America's Constitution was ratified only after, and perhaps only because, amendments were possible and were promised. But the salient difference is this: America's Constitution was written to strengthen the central government for a remarkably homogeneous society. Iraq's constitution was written to make a strong central government impossible for a violently tribal society. The constitution's basis -- federalism based on ethnicity -- replicates the condition that contained the seeds of America's Civil War: the deepest political cleavages coincide with regional cleavages.

Still, the Bush administration's increasingly skillful engagement with Iraq's political evolution proves how much it has come to terms with the fact that, as The New Yorker's George Packer writes, "victory in Iraq is a process, not an event." The tardy recognition of that fact was costly.

When Baghdad was engulfed in the lawlessness and looting that gutted the Iraqi state after Saddam's regime fell, Donald Rumsfeld's response was: "Stuff happens" and "it's untidy, and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." These now-famous words, writes Packer, "implied a whole political philosophy" which had what Packer calls "the purity of untested thoughts.":

"The defense secretary looked upon anarchy and saw the early stages of democracy. In his view and that of others in the administration, but above all the president, freedom was the absence of constraint. Freedom existed in divinely endowed human nature, not in man-made institutions and laws. Remove a thirty-five-year-old tyranny and democracy will grow in its place, because people everywhere want to be free. There was no contingency for psychological demolition. What had been left out of the planning were the Iraqis themselves."

Which means there was almost no planning. Why plan for what will sprout spontaneously?

When America's Constitution was ratified in 1789, federalism was an unfinished fact. (It still is, but today's adjustments of states' rights and responsibilities are minor matters.) If the federal government of 1789 had not grown in strength, relative to the states, far more than most ratifiers of the Constitution anticipated or desired, the United States probably would not have remained united. So the question today, which will be answered in coming years by the political process framed by Iraq's new constitution, is whether that constitution "stands up" a nation, or presages the partitioning of it, perhaps by the serrated blade of civil war.


© Copyright 2005, The News & Observer Publishing Company,
a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 11:35 am
Kara, I also read that article by George Will in the San Jose Merc this morning. That he still asks the question whether it will result in a civil war tells me he's still speaking for Bushco.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2005 11:56 am
c.i., I thought it was a pretty balanced commentary, compared to the over-the-top polarization one hears from many columnists, conservative or progressive, these days.

I found it far more realistic than the pie-in-the-sky view we are being fed from the administration.
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 0.05 seconds on 06/17/2025 at 06:12:58