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

WhoodaThunk wrote:

old europe wrote:
And that's supposed to be a justification for violating the Geneva Conventions, for disregarding human rights, for disappearing people from within allied nations, for denying access to prisons and for sanctioning torture?

That's how you think that the hearts and minds can be won? By blaming others?

Yes, Europe messed up in the Balkans. If you think pointing that out will suffice to win the "War on Terror", so be it. I'll disagree.

I said no such thing.

I've merely indicated Old Europe has been conspicuously absent time and again when the opportunity presented itself to do the right thing.

Why should we give a rat's ass now that Old Europe has suddenly stumbled upon its morals?

You're right. I think that literally every country in the world has been absent time and again when the opportunity presented itself to do the right thing.

Why should you give a rat's ass about what is happening in your country's name, in your name? I don't know. I suppose nobody can't be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

0 Replies

Ah . . . double negative in that last sentence . . . Bailiff, whack his pee-pee . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ah . . . double negative in that last sentence . . . Bailiff, whack his pee-pee . . .

Quote:

I suppose nobody can't be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

I suppose nobody cannot be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

I suppose that means that everybody can be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

(NOT, NOT A = A) Smile

0 Replies

Good article by Martin Walker. But never underestimate Blair's political genius...and should he fail and be forced to resign? Well he's already said he's resigning, what's new?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Ah . . . double negative in that last sentence . . . Bailiff, whack his pee-pee . . .

Quote:
I suppose nobody can't be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

I suppose nobody cannot be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

I suppose that means that everybody can be forced to care about the violation of human rights.

(NOT, NOT A = A) (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste.)

This is an idiosyncrasy of modern English usage. As recently as Shakespeare and the Jacobite playwrights, multiple negatives were common in English. Many European languages continue not only to employ multiple negatives, but to insist upon them. So, for example--"I have no fruits or vegetables or meats or fish to sell."--would be rendered in French as: "Je n'ai de fruits, ni de legumes, ni de viande ni de poisson a vendre."

It is simply a conceit of the English language that there is a superior logic in the prohibition on multiple negatives. The logic of many other languages--such as, for example, French--is that a negative must be reiterated to preserve the grammatical sense of negation.

However, i'm sure this would be a far more charming point for you to argue then to sail into the dangerous waters of say, history, in which you inevitably wreck your barque.

0 Replies

ican's been posting double, triple, and quadruple negatives all along. That's the reason I don't bother reading his long posts.

0 Replies

EU warned on 'secret CIA jails'
The European Union's top justice official has warned that any EU state found to have hosted a secret CIA jail could have its voting rights suspended.
Franco Frattini said the consequences would be "extremely serious" if reports of such prisons turned out to be true.

This comes amid an EU investigation into claims the US secret service ran clandestine jails in eastern Europe.

The US has refused to confirm or deny the reports, which surfaced in the US earlier this month.

'No response'

Speaking at a news conference in Berlin, the EU Justice Commissioner said he would call for tough penalties against any involved state.

It is very, very important to get the truth
Franco Frattini
EU Justice Commissioner

"I would be obliged to propose to the Council [of EU Ministers] serious consequences, including the suspension of voting rights in the council," he said.
He said a suspension of voting rights would be justified if any country is found to have breached the bloc's founding principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Such a move would be unprecedented.

A diplomatic source said that to suspend a member state's voting rights in the Council of the European Union, the other 25 member states would have to vote unanimously to take such a step, which would be unlikely to happen in practice.

Mr Frattini said the Bush administration had asked for more time to deliver a response to the accusations after a senior commission official formally raised the issue on a visit to Washington last week.

"Right now, there is no [US] response," he said.

The allegations that the CIA held al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons in Eastern Europe were first reported in the Washington Post on 2 November.

According to civil liberties group Human Rights Watch, the jails are based in Romania and Poland.

'Secret flights'

Mr Frattini said Romania's Interior Minister, Vasil Blaga, told him there were no such prisons in his country.

The justice commissioner said it was "very, very important to get the truth", but he cautioned that it was "impossible to move only on the basis of allegations".

Meanwhile, Spain, Sweden and Iceland are looking into separate reports that CIA planes stopped in their territory while transporting terror suspects.

The European investigator, Swiss Senator Dick Marty, is looking into what he called the suspicious movement patterns of flights in the region.

The UK Foreign Office has confirmed that Britain will be writing to the US, on behalf the EU, to clarify the reports of secret prisons, which were reportedly set up after the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4478766.stm

Published: 2005/11/28 16:33:59 GMT

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican's been posting double, triple, and quadruple negatives all along. That's the reason I don't bother reading his long posts.

NEITHER statement is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT true. Shocked

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...
However, i'm sure this would be a far more charming point for you to argue then to sail into the dangerous waters of say, history, in which you inevitably wreck your barque.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies. Smile

0 Replies

From the NYT:

Last week, for the first time, Iraq's political factions, represented by about 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal.

This is inconsistent with Bush' "stay the course."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

You should print that out in large block letters and tape it the mirror you use to shave each morning . . .

The evidence for your ignorance of history is to be found in every post in which you attempted to allege historical precedent for any event even remotely concerned with the Shrub's dirty little war.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

However, i'm sure this would be a far more charming point for you to argue then to sail into the dangerous waters of say, history, in which you inevitably wreck your barque.

0 Replies

The al Qaeda et al malignancy continually murders civilians and their combatant prisoners in direct moral, ethical and legal disobediance of the Geneva Conventions. The al Qaeda et al malignancy has declared and continues to declare what they in their 1998 fatwah stated:

Quote:

to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.

Some among us repeatedly insist that our American soldiers are nonetheless morally obliged to obey the Geneva Conventions when battling and incarcerating the al Qaeda et al malignancy. That insistance clearly serves the objectives of the al Qaeda et al malignancy. That insistance also handicaps our soldiers by prolonging the war, by increasing our soldier's casualties, and by increasing civilian casualties in both Iraq and the rest of the world.

What is moral, ethical, and legal about that?

Directing our military to kill each and everyone who abets or obeys the al Qaeda et al malignancy best serves the vital interests of humanity. That is truly moral, ethical and legal.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...
The evidence for your ignorance of history is to be found in every post in which you attempted to allege historical precedent for any event even remotely concerned with the Shrub's dirty little war.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

From the NYT:

Last week, for the first time, Iraq's political factions, represented by about 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal.

This is inconsistent with Bush' "stay the course."

WRONG!
When these and/or any other such factions convince their December 15th elected government to ask the USA to remove its military from Iraq, the USA will gratefully and eagerly remove its military as rapidly as it safely can. That of course, is obviously quite consistent with Bush's "stay the course." That is the end of the course Bush has repeatedly declared he wants to "stay."

The Bush administration's solution is the seven-step course they specified in 2003. It is the course they have stayed and are staying and have repeatedly declared they will stay. Their solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. They have completed four of the seven steps in their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election.
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military.
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government.
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval.
(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government.
(6) Help train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(7) Remove our military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.

Step (5) will occur December 15, 2005.

Is their progress toward their solution fast enough? NO!
Have they committed many blunders along the way? YES!
Are they making progress toward their solution? YES!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ah . . . double negative in that last sentence . . . Bailiff, whack his pee-pee . . .

Bloody hell. There it shows again, my poor command of the English language.

0 Replies

I see that Ican't adheres deparately to the school of mindless repetition, believing that saying a thing often enough will make it so . . . i suspect that this is as close to any kind of school as he has ever come . . .

******************************

Actually, OE, your command of the language does you credit when your posts appear among the ravings of many of the members here, liberal and conservative, who are long on rhetoric, and short on communication skills . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I see that Ican't adheres deparately to the school of mindless repetition, believing that saying a thing often enough will make it so . . . i suspect that this is as close to any kind of school as he has ever come . . ..

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

0 Replies

In the meantime, despite the bluster from Setanta and Old Europe's meaningless asides, KEY FIGURES --DEMOCRATS---were not calling for a mad rush to the exits although they were critical of the Administrations' handling of the situation in postwar Iraq.

Barack Obama, certainly no conservative, talked not of a time table but of a "time frame" for drawing down the US military presence in Iraq. He said: "We have to manage our exit in a responsible way-with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and perhaps, irreparable crisis."

John Edwards wrote in a recent Washington Post OP-Ed.

"We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure. What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient,comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny"

Edwards endorsed a gradual redeployment of US troops "that will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country"

Senator Lieberman, who has made four trips to Iraq said: "From the view of Congress, there is almost no support for a hasty withdrawal before we complete our mission"

Three Democratic high profile Senators have spoken.

It would appear that they agree with ican711nm.

0 Replies

The only fantasies around here are ican's posts. I agree with set, ican thinks repeating something enough times makes them true.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know