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

Mortkat, I did not talk about payback of college loans. You must've missed my post - or probably miss-read it - again. When any institution provides loans, it's up to that institution to ensure that it's paid back. If they failed that responsibility, don't blame that on future students that need the loan to attend college.

Your inability to understand what you read makes one wonder how you completed your education.

Iraq: As Coalition Shrinks, Who Will Shoulder Additional Burdens?
By Charles Recknagel
...

The Netherlands has announced that it will withdraw its 1,350 troops from Iraq by mid-March. It's the latest in a string of similar announcements by Washington's allies, including plans by Poland and Ukraine to get mostly or completely out of Iraq over the course of this year. When the troop reductions are complete, how much of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq will be left, and who will shoulder the additional security burdens?
...
Some analysts say the withdrawals may only marginally change the security situation because they will occur in the least restive areas of the country. The multinational force, led by Poland, is deployed south of the Sunni Triangle, where most of the recent violence has occurred.

Phillip Mitchell, a ground forces specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, told RFE/RL: "The Poles have been operating in a relatively benign environment compared with, let's say, the U.S. in the Sunni Triangle and, indeed, further north in Mosul. So, therefore, I would see their [eventual] withdrawal and perhaps the withdrawal of the Dutch force as being a matter which has some consequence. But the allies in those areas -- either the U.S. or the U.K. forces -- would be able to take over their area of operations with relative ease."

Mitchell said he expects U.S. forces to the north of the multinational force's sector, and British troops to the south, to extend their areas of control to make up for the troop withdrawals.

Mitchell also said U.S. and British officials hope that Iraq's fledgling security forces will grow strong enough in the coming months to undertake increased duties in less restive areas of the country.

Most of us already know what's true, but when he responds with "unpaid loans," we must assume that is the reason for the cutbacks. He'll need to make a better case for his claims.

Trying to rationalize government spending goes nowhere. The government has many different ways to collect money due them. Maybe you've lived in another country.

We're spending two billion every week in Iraq. Try to balance this spending against the needs of our own people.

Security as the justification for our war in Iraq has no basis in fact;
That's pure nonsense!

I have repeatedly posted a preponderance of evidence supporting the following allegations.

Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1714233#1714233


Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there. Al Qaeda grew substantially by the time of our invasion of Iraq in March 2003, because Saddam's government tolerated (i.e., harbored) al Qaeda in Iraq.

My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1714240#1714240


My most recent post of my answer to the question whether any of this evidence supports reasons that were among Bush’s original reasons for invading Iraq, will be found at: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1714246#1714246

President Bush said this on 12/14/2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4528982.stm
A stable Iraq was in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people, he said. And he accused critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, of playing pure politics.

Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.


it's what this administration ended up with after using other justifications that didn't turn out.

Remember WMDs and al Qaeda connections?

The al Qaeda connection to Saddam Hussein was proven to have been established December 2001 in Iraq after the USA invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. It grew substantially up to the time the USA invaded Iraq March 2003 and removed half that connection (i.e., removed Saddam Hussein).

Alleged prior connections (i.e., prior to 9/11/2001) between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are irrelevant.

Alleged WMD in Iraq are equally irrelevant.

icant wrote: Our Constitution does not delegate to government the power to redistribute the wealth of Americans.

You mean public education, food stamp program, and community hospitals are not manded by our federal government? That's news to me!
Read the Constitution and all its amendments and see if you can find where the Constitution delegates to the feds the power to transfer wealth from some citizens to other citizens of the USA. The Feds were not delegated the power to finance public education, to provide the food stamp program, nor provide community hospitals

We do not get what we pay for. You prolly hadn't heard about the bridge to nowhere that will cost millions to serve about 50 people.
Sure we do! We will be paying for that bridge to nowhere, and we will get it like all the rest of the billions of dollars worth of so-called "earmarks" by which Congress is attempting to buy votes with their constituent's money.

And that, CI, is precisely what is wrong with federal wealth transfer. It corrupts the transferer of that wealth, the supplier of that wealth, and the receiver of that wealth, whether it transfers wealth to the poor or to the rich or to the middle class. None of these transfers is constitutional without an amendment to the Constitution that delegates that power to the feds. No such amendment currently exists. I pray it never does exist, and we stop such transfer before our republic collapses like so many others for the same damn reason.

Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of transfering wealth to the poor, to the midle class and to the rich to buy votes. Bush is only the most recent president to sign instead of veto bills that do just that! Damn whomever does it!

The following poem called The New Colossus, written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus, appears on the pedestal of the Statue:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name,
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If it's illegal to transfer wealth, why don't you do something about it?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

WE HEREBY ACCUSE the Federal Government of the United States of America of unlawful conduct against payers of federal taxes

We, citizens of the United States of America, have read and studied the plain language of the Constitution of the United States of America and its 27 amendments (hereinafter, THE CONSTITUTION). We conclude from this reading and study that it is unlawful for the federal government to tax any dollar of our income differently than it taxes any dollar of any other person or person’s income. We further conclude that it is unlawful for the federal government to tax any dollar of our expenditures differently than it taxes any dollar of any other person or person’s expenditures.

We charge that the Federal Government has by unlawful laws of its own legislation, execution, administration and adjudication authorized different taxes on different dollars of income and different taxes on different dollars of expenditures. The federal government has thereby committed the criminal act of violating the supreme law of the land: that is, THE CONSTITUTION. This unlawful conduct has deprived us and other citizens of their right to equal protection of the law of their equal privileges and immunities.

Consequently, we demand that the Federal Government immediately cease this unlawful conduct.

Furthermore, this unlawful conduct has itself corrupted citizens and members of the Federal Government to bribe and extort one another to gain privileges and immunities not uniformly available to all citizens.

Therefore, we also demand that the federal government immediately cease its unlawful bribing, being bribed, extorting and being extorted.

SUMMARY OF OUR ARGUMENT providing compelling proof that our complaint is valid.

Limited Powers of the Federal Government
I. THE CONSTITUTION is the Supreme law of the land.
II. The powers of the three branches of the Federal Government (i.e., the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial) are strictly limited to those expressly delegated to them by THE CONSTITUTION.
III. There are exactly two ways to lawfully propose amendments to THE CONSTITUTION.
IV. There are exactly two ways to lawfully ratify proposed amendments to THE CONSTITUTION.
V. The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government (e.g., the Supreme Court) does not have the power to lawfully propose amendments to THE CONSTITUTION, and does not have the power to lawfully ratify amendments to THE CONSTITUTION.
VI. The Federal Government does not have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises that are not necessary and not proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by THE CONSTITUTION; However, the Federal Government does have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises that are necessary and proper for providing for the security, the integrity, and the competent and effective exercise of THE CONSTITUTION(al) powers of the Federal Government.

Individual Property Rights
VII. The property rights of any person or persons under the jurisdiction of the United States of America are the same as the property rights of any other person or persons under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
VIII. It is unlawful for the Federal Government to compel any person or persons to pay taxes that are used to supplement the incomes of another person or persons.
IX. It is unlawful for the Federal Government to take property lawfully owned by any person or persons, and transfer it to another person or persons without due process of law and without equitable compensation.

Individual Tax Immunities and Protections
X. THE CONSTITUTION denies the Federal Government the power to levy taxes at different rates for different citizens.
XI. The Congress cannot lawfully take different portions of the income of persons depending on Congress’s opinion of the worthiness of persons.

"Reistribute the wealth of Americans" is merely a catchy conservative phrase. Ideally, our country is supposed to be a country of compassion.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

icant, Compassion doesn't come from any laws; it comes from the heart. ...