icant wrote:
I don't like that solution. In the case of Iraq, I prefer to eventually delegate that problem to the Iraq military.
You mean, eventually delegate that responsibility after this administration screwed up by not having enough ground troops to secure the borders.
ican711nm wrote: In the case of the USA, all I can think of at this time is a well-maintained electrified wall along our borders with specific gates.
I remeber well that someone called something like that a "frontier of peace" 44 years ago
Cycloptichorn wrote:You put me at a disadvantage, sir, since my original choice would require a time machine.
...
First, I would halt the rapid expansion of privatization of Iraq, especially by US companies.
...
Second, I would try to establish an alska-style oil trust fund.
...
Third, I would begin the process of extending olive branches to some foreign governments
...
Swallowing national pride
...
I like your three plus one recommendations better than mine with these reservations:
(1) I think the privatization should be continued for the sake of efficiency and productivity, but with a guaranteed percent of revenue return to the Iraqis people (e.g., personal as well as national income);
(2) I think the Iraqi people should periodically elect representatives that can each serve for a maximum number of terms as members of the board of directors of these companies;
(3) I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business;
(4) I think such a solution would not require the USA to swallow its national pride, but rather swell with pride over such a fine outcome as it happily leaves Iraq.
Still, there remains the current question of how to terminate the al-Qaeda-kill-the-infidels religion in Iraq. Perhaps that can be done more easily by the Iraq government itself once (1) thru (4) are accomplished.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant wrote:
I don't like that solution. In the case of Iraq, I prefer to eventually delegate that problem to the Iraq military.
You mean, eventually delegate that responsibility after this administration screwed up by not having enough ground troops to secure the borders.
YES!
I suggest we install two 50 foot high monoliths of granite, one in a prominent place in Washington D.C. and one in a prominent place in Baghdad, with these exact words enscribed thereon:
After screwing up by not having enough ground troops to secure Iraq's borders, President George W. Bush administration hereby delegates to the Iraqi military the problem of securing Iraq's borders.
Walter Hinteler wrote:ican711nm wrote: In the case of the USA, all I can think of at this time is a well-maintained electrified wall along our borders with specific gates.
I remeber well that someone called something like that a "frontier of peace" 44 years ago
Whoops! I can hear Gorbachov now. "Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!"
OK, let's dig a wide canal with
specific bridges and high speed water flow from or to the Gulf of Mexico to or from the Pacific Ocean.
Naaa! That wouldn't work either. Gorbachov would then probably say: "Mr. Bush dam up that damn canal!"
Sigh! I'm open to your suggestions.
ican711nm wrote:
What has changed is that a majority of two peoples are not seeking empire, but are instead seeking to secure their mutual liberty. A majority of both these two peoples understand very well that their liberty cannot be secure for either, if it is not secure for both.
Where is the evidence for all these unsubstantiated assertions?
Remember George Washington's Farewell Address in which he warned us about "foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues."
ican711nm wrote:
(3) I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business;
Required? By what? Executive fiat? No company wants to invest in a volatile and war torn country, where there is no guarantee of safety and is met with constant unrest. We hear all the time of how oil pipelines are blown up, or some employees are killed.
Religion for the Bush Years
(anonymous)
23rd QUALM
Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no
exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy
term,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.
Here's a letter from an honest, patriotic, thoughtful and intelligent lady to the President's wife.
...an open letter from the poet Sharon Olds to Laura Bush declining
the invitation to read and speak at the National Book Critics Circle
Award in Washington, DC.
Sharon Olds is one of most widely read and critically acclaimed poets
living in America today.
Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind
invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on
September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or
the breakfast at the White House. In one way, it's a very appealing invitation.
The idea of speaking at
a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of
finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in
terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents--all of us who
need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.
And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been
dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school
of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some
magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have
become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of
settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology
ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely
Physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating
along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and
their students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor,
courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone
nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell
out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter,
his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and
essentialness of writing.
When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who
Is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and
Pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to
the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has
been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that
letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the
human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit-- and the
importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's
unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I
thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program.
I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet
some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find
a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling
that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief hat the
wish to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant
loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the
noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our democracy but was
instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on the people by distorted
language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have
begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism--the
opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear
witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and
its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war.
But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that
if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to
be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking
food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that
unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent
of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other
countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish
and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of
the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of
the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS
Quote:WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - President Bush issued a stark warning to Democrats on Tuesday about how to conduct the debate on Iraq as midterm elections approach, declaring that Americans know the difference between "honest critics" and those "who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."
This is a simple ploy, a transparent attempt to pre-empt and therefore devalue an opponent's point by referring to it first.
I hope people don't buy it- it should be obvious to most. Make him face up to his misdeeds, America, make him accountable.
Or a setting of the stage for an 'imperial' presidency?
McTag wrote:Here's a letter from an honest, patriotic, thoughtful and intelligent lady to the President's wife.
...
Already have a thread going about that nonsense .....
HERE.
What worked before will probably work again. Setanta left a post which to my mind sums up the whole current political atmosphere in the US.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1782913#1782913
Here's Carl Hiaasen:
Cheney led cheerleaders of Iraq invasion
By CARL HIAASEN
The loudest cheerleader for invading Iraq is on the stump once again, defending the bloody, bogged-down occupation and lambasting its critics.
Getting a war lecture from Dick Cheney is like getting dating advice from Michael Jackson.
The last time the United States went to battle, Cheney stayed far out of harm's way. His only wounds from Vietnam were the paper cuts he got from opening his five -- count 'em, five -- draft deferment notices.
''I had other priorities in the '60s other than military service,'' he explained to a reporter in 1989.
Thousands of other young men applied for student deferments in the Vietnam era, or received draft lottery numbers that were never called (mine was 44). However, none grew up to be vice president of the nation, peddling a contrived war that somebody else's kids would have to fight.
Nobody pushed harder than Cheney for a military strike against Saddam Hussein. Nobody was more cocksure about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear components. Nobody was more emphatic about a secret alliance between al Qaeda and Baghdad.
And nobody was more consistently wrong.
Cheney stuck to his dour WMD speech long after it was embarrassingly clear that no such weapons were in Iraq, and long after others in the administration had abandoned the argument.
The 9/11 Commission, the CIA and intelligence panels found no credible evidence of an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda, yet that never stopped Cheney from repeatedly suggesting otherwise.
One thing about the vice president: He doesn't let the facts steer him ''off message.'' Only five months ago, he surprised even fellow hawks like Donald Rumsfeld by matter-of-factly stating that the Iraqi insurgency was in ``its final throes.''
Wrong again, Dicky boy. Iraq remains a bloodbath, with insurgents killing more than 160 people in the past two weeks alone.
Polls show that an increasing majority of Americans say the war was a mistake, for reasons transcending the $5-billion-per-month tab. As of mid-week, the U.S. military death toll stood at 2,100, with no end in sight.
The Shiites and Sunnis continue slaughtering each other, and the country remains so dangerous that candidates in the Dec. 15 national elections move from town to town in armored military convoys. No one's safe from assassination, even Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers.
Back home, prosecutors have accused two Americans -- one a convicted fraud artist -- of using bribery and kickbacks to plunder U.S. funds earmarked for reconstruction services in Iraq.
At the same time, the Justice Department is finally examining the award to Halliburton -- the vice president's corporate alma mater -- of a no-bid, multibillion-dollar contract to repair Iraqi oil fields.
Day after day, the news gets worse.
After such a heavy cost -- so many heroic soldiers and innocent civilians killed or injured, so many billions spent -- the United State is more despised than ever by the radical Muslim world.
After all this, Iraq -- which had no al Qaeda presence when Saddam Hussein was in power -- is now a hotbed recruiting center for the fanatical terrorist group.
After all this, Osama bin Laden -- the most wanted man on the planet, the monster who financed and helped mastermind the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers -- is still on the loose.
It's no wonder people feel weary and disillusioned.
For a time, Cheney's office was Smear Central for retribution against critics of the Bush war policy. Some of the fun has gone out of that sport since his right-hand man, Scooter Libby, got busted.
Last week, the vice president carefully went out of his way to exempt from scorn Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam combat veteran who has called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
''A good man, a Marine, a patriot,'' Cheney said of Murtha.
Only days earlier, a White House spokesman had lashed out at Murtha, comparing him to rabble-rousing filmmaker Michael Moore. The attacks stopped when somebody figured out that the public wouldn't stand for another vicious Swift-Boating of a war veteran.
There's no easy answer for how to get unstuck from Iraq, but there's room for open and honest debate. Unfortunately, no one has less credibility on the subject than Cheney.
The last time he was right was 1991, after the first Gulf war, when he defended the first President Bush's decision not to bomb Saddam out of power and install a new Iraqi government.
Such an invasion, Cheney warned then, would have gotten the United States ``bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.''
A veritable voice of reason, he said, ``How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?''
Good question, Dick.
It's the same one now being asked by solid Americans in all parties and all walks of life, people who don't need pious war lectures from a paper-cut expert.
Anonymouse wrote:ican711nm wrote:
(3) I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business;
Required? By what? Executive fiat?
...
I hope this restatement will make it clearer to you what I actually think:
I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies,
who desire to invest in and participate in Iraq oil production and distribution , should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business,
in order to obtain one or more such segments they want.
ican711nm wrote:Anonymouse wrote:ican711nm wrote:
(3) I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business;
Required? By what? Executive fiat?
...
I hope this restatement will make it clearer to you what I actually think:
I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies,
who desire to invest in and participate in Iraq oil production and distribution , should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business,
in order to obtain one or more such segments they want.
So I suppose you would have no objection to foreign companies coming into the USA, slicing it up and competing among themselves for the rights to exploit it- oil, lumber, fisheries, seed bank, antiquities? For their own gain? American companies could bid too, of course.
McTag wrote:ican711nm wrote:Anonymouse wrote:ican711nm wrote:
(3) I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business;
Required? By what? Executive fiat?
...
I hope this restatement will make it clearer to you what I actually think:
I think that private foreign as well as private domestic companies,
who desire to invest in and participate in Iraq oil production and distribution , should be required to competitively bid for inividual segments of the Iraq oil business,
in order to obtain one or more such segments they want.
So I suppose you would have no objection to foreign companies coming into the USA, slicing it up and competing among themselves for the rights to exploit it- oil, lumber, fisheries, seed bank, antiquities? For their own gain? American companies could bid too, of course.
No objection whatsoever!
This has in fact been going on in the USA for the last two centuries. Foreign companies and domestic companies have regularly competed to buy American businesses and patents. Sometimes a foreign company is high bidder and sometimes not.
Big Deal! For example: Who owns Chrysler now?
SOME MORE MEASURABLE PROGRESS
(1) From 1991 to 2003, the Saddamist malignancy murdered more than 290,000 Iraqi civilians. That's an average over 12 years of more than 24,000 Iraqi civilians per year.
From 2003 to 2006, the Saddamist & al Qaeda malignancy murdered or are the cause of the death of less than 36,000 Iraq civilians. That's an average over 3 years of less than 12,000 Iraqi civilians per year -- the actual current montly average is less than 900. The most effective way to greatly reduce this 12,000 annual average, is to exterminate the Saddamist & al Qaeda malignancy.
(2) While current Iraq oil production does not yet match the peak annual oil production the Saddam regime once achieved, there has been a net increase in the amount of Iraq oil revenue invested in improving Iraq for all Iraqis. The most effective way to greatly increase this annual average amount of oil revenue invested in improving Iraq for all Iraqis, is to exterminate the Saddamist & al Qaeda malignancy.
