I wonder what it was we went through ..... are we really back in Kansas again? Did we findthose dog gone WMDs yet? How about that 5 trillion dollar surplus, other than Bush campaign contributions has any of it shown up yet? Those 200 American soldiers that have been killed in Iraq for whatever reason George comes up with .... are they still dead?
It so pisses me off when the Republicans start off with that 'things are great, get over it' bull crap. I can read and I can reason ..... this is Vietnam all over again!
?
Blatham, you have a keenly developed truth sense so tell me ...... how much of the anticipated 250 million dollar war chest, that is for all extents and purposes, already claimed by the Bush cartel, will be certified .... and are the same people that did such a bang up job of counting the 2000 Florida vote in charge of the tally?
Gel
I am almost certain you have me confused with someone else. The last time I sensed truth keenly developing was in 1968 on an acid trip with a young lady named Bubbles.
Tiny bubbles
In the wine
Make me happy
Make me feel fine . . .
I think i met that there young lady . . .
1967, purple micro dot, I don't think she ever told me ....... moon flower, corn flower, bag of flour ..... so many faces ..... whooaaa ------ flashback
blatham, The human rights violations of our military needs to be investigated and corrected if these stories are true. That more Americans are finally realizing that our war in Iraq is going badly is somewhat of a good news for those of us that wishes to see a regime change in our country at the next election. c.i.
Mohammad Owdeh, a local resident, told Reuters: "These explosions are a message to the Americans because they have done nothing for the Iraqi people. There will be more and more explosions."
from the BBC
I just heard a commentary/report from a German correspondant in Bagdad.
She said that people blame the USA especially for the way, the US is trying to set up a 'puppet government' without the support of the Iranian people.
While I think, this really could be a reason for blaming (not terrorism!), the other mentioned points: no work, no money, no wages, no food seem to be those of people in any country just invaded and occupied.
There were soldiers interviewed (those didn't say their names), who said, they just wanted to go home.
If this really is a wider spread feeling among the troops, more difficulties and trouble is programed.
Walter, That the soldiers are finally expressing their true feelings about being in Iraq, maybe more Americans will realize the futility of being there in the first place, and start to question the justifications for the war. c.i.
So, CI, when soldiers say what you think they should say it is revealing their "true feelings"? Is everyone else lying? Were these same soldiers lying before? Or is it possible that different individuals have different feelings about it, and each has different feelings at different times?
I don't think you can simply look at a statement or statements and then say, "Ah, now the truth comes out".
Scrat, It would depend, as Walter speculated, if this is a more widespread feeling of the troops, and they become more public. If the troops are forced to stay while their morale drops, how long will the public accept those conditions? We just don't need another Viet Nam. c.i.
I am so tired of this "another Vietnam" crap! Why is it no one is questioning whether Bosnia is "another Vietnam"? Oh, I remember... that nice Clinton feller got us into that particular quagmire.
NEWS FLASH: Only VIETNAM is Vietnam.
A lack of grasp of history and events can lead to strange conclusions.
Scrat, That's asking for too much; Americans still favor the decisions made by this administration to attack Iraq. Never mind looking at history; they need to see the truth of this crisis first. c.i.
My current feeling is that the terrorists have won in Iraq and the terrorists are us!
a
What happend to the America I grew up in .... the one that told the bad guys 'bring it on, we have nothing to hide'?
How did we become the bad guys?
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
U.S. suspends some military aid over international court
Affected are 35 nations that refuse to grant Americans immunity
By ELIZABETH BECKER
THE NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration yesterday suspended all U.S. military assistance to 35 countries because they refused to pledge to give U.S. citizens immunity before the International Criminal Court.
The administration warned last year that under a provision of the new U.S. anti-terrorism law, any country that became a member of the new court but failed to give exemptions to Americans serving within its borders would lose all U.S. military aid -- including education, training and financing of weapons and equipment purchases.
Many of the affected countries, such as Colombia and Ecuador, are considered critical to the administration's efforts to bring stability to this hemisphere. Others such as Croatia are preparing to join NATO and were counting on U.S. help to modernize their armed forces.
Officials said that, in all, $47.6 million in aid and $613,000 in military education programs will be lost to the 35 countries.
The Bush administration strongly opposes the new court, the world's first permanent forum for trying individuals charged with genocide and other crimes against humanity, on the grounds that Americans could be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions.
"There should be no misunderstanding that the issue of protecting U.S. persons from the International Criminal Court will be a significant and pressing matter in our relations with every state," Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said yesterday.
President Bush signed a waiver exempting 22 nations from these sanctions because they had signed but not yet ratified the immunity agreement.
Nations that are full members of NATO and other major allies -- including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Japan and South Korea -- were not part of the military assistance prohibition.
Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein of Jordan, the president of the assembly of nations that signed the treaty establishing the court, said that 90 countries have become members despite the opposition of the United States.
"The simple conclusion is that the American campaign has not had a negative effect on the establishment of this court. We have a court in place, a very fine panel of judges, a prosecutor and we should be fully running by the end of the year," said the prince, who is the permanent representative of Jordan to the United Nations.
The original exemption provision passed by Congress in the anti-terrorism law emphasized U.S. service members, but the administration has interpreted it to include all citizens of the United States.
Lincoln Bloomfield Jr., the assistant secretary for political military affairs, said the administration had no intention of undermining the court.
Instead, he said, the administration wanted to preserve its right to remain outside of its purview, especially with the rise in the number of attempts to indict U.S. officials for war crimes.
"Our opposition is not meant to be a lack of respect for the jurists involved in the ICC. It is concern that there could be politically motivated charges against American citizens," said Bloomfield. "Several standing officials have been under war crimes indictment in Belgium this year for their roles in the 1991 Gulf War."
He said these include Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Richard Dicker, a director of Human Rights Watch in New York, which has lobbied for the court's creation, said the suspension of military aid yesterday amounted to a defeat for the campaign against the court.
"This policy is creating a dilemma where the administration has to choose between sound military cooperation with democratic nations and this campaign of ideology against the international criminal court," said Dicker. "I've never seen a sanctions regime aimed at countries that believe in the rule of law rather than ones that commit human rights abuses."
Senior administration officials said that yesterday's announcement should not be seen as a permanent freeze on all military aid to these 35 countries. The aid could be resumed if they signed the exemption agreement demanded by the administration. Or the president could issue waivers at any time if he believes that, by failing to help a foreign government face an emergency, the country's national security would be put at risk.
WHO GETS MONEY
Waivers granted by President Bush allow the following countries to continue receiving U.S. military aid. In most cases, the countries have been identified as having signed bilateral agreements exempting U.S. personnel from prosecution before the United Nations International Criminal Court.
# Waived: Gabon, Gambia, Mongolia, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Tajikistan.
# Waived until Nov. 1: Afghanistan, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Ghana, Honduras and Romania.
# Waived until Jan. 1: Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Panama and Uganda.
The Bush administration has not publicly identified the approximately 35 nations facing military aid suspensions for not approving bilateral exemption agreements.
Printer-friendly version
E-mail this story
Get e-mail news updates
Subscribe to the P-I
"What happend to the America I grew up in .... the one that told the bad guys 'bring it on, we have nothing to hide'? "
...yeah - I think I saw that one... didn't it star John Wayne?
lies
Scrat says:
Quote:I don't think you can simply look at a statement or statements and then say, "Ah, now the truth comes out".
Google up some 'pentagon papers' and educate yourself girl.
Nam Iraq ..... Iraq Nam
