0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 01:07 pm
I have no doubt that from time to time Bush et al have spoken of the future of Iraq, but I cannot recall ever having seen an actual plan.

I mean, there are vague outlining of points - such as this - but no real discussion on how we are going to achieve those points, beyond the level of simple slogans.

I think it is also quite telling that there are no metrics for determining when these points will be achieved. I realize that you want to rely upon casualty rate to do so, but don't you think that there are other factors, social, economic, and military, that will have to be in place as well?

There is also the question of permanent military bases in Iraq, something that will undoubtedly be a sticking point in the next year or so with the Iraqi government, who has been striking deals with the insurgents which call for the removal of all foreign troops from Iraq.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 01:59 pm
Interesting attribution to wife of killed leader in Irag (forget the spelling of his name) about selling him out in exchange for not going after OBL too vigorously.

From one of Ge's links:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/akins.html

"After the 1963 coup, how did U.S. policy change?

It didn't change very much. The Ba'ath Party had come to control. We were very happy. They got rid of a lot of communists. A lot of them were executed, or shot. This was a great development. And things opened up in Iraq. We resumed diplomatic relations. Ultimately, we sent out an ambassador. But when did the disillusionment start? Not while I was there. I left in 1965.

Let's talk about the 1970s, when the U.S. began working with the Kurds. What was your sense of the way American handled that?

I consider this one of the more shameful stories in our diplomatic history. The Kurds came to us repeatedly. While I was there, they came to us, and the position that I took was, "You're great people. You're really awfully good, and you really should have your rights inside Iraq, and probably in other countries. But you'll never ever get any support from the United States, because we have great interests in Iran, and in Turkey. Both of them have larger Kurdish populations than you have in Iraq, and any move toward autonomy, or even worse, toward independence in Iraq would certainly upset our allies--the Shah in Iran, and the Turks. So you'll never get support from us. The only hope that you can get from us is that we will urge the governments to treat you fairly. You might aspire to some sort of cultural autonomy, but never, never, any military support."

Things changed after that. We soured on Saddam, and we did give the Kurds military support through Iran. The Turks were not involved at that time. Then, the Shah concluded his agreement with Saddam, and the attitude of Iran changed totally. They stopped hating the Kurds. The border was sealed off, and the Kurds had no outside support whatsoever. Saddam was able to move into Kurdistan and take his vengeance on the Kurds. Kissinger was asked about the morality of a policy that encouraged the people to revolt against their central government in order to obtain a minor political gain for us--and then when we achieved other goals, we would betray the people and allowed them to be slaughtered. And Kissinger replied that covert military activity is not to be confused with missionary work. It's one of the two most immoral statements made by a secretary of state in recent years. The other was by Mrs. Albright, who was asked about the morality of the sanctions program that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. She said that we considered that, and decided it was worthwhile. The second statement has been quoted throughout the entire Muslim world. The first statement really only concerned the Kurds.

Can you tell the story you relayed to me earlier--when you asked Mulla Mustafa about why he had trusted the Americans?

After Mulla Mustafa left Iraq, he came to the United States. He wasn't well. Cancer was diagnosed here, and I saw a lot of him when he was here. I talked to him about what had happened in the past. He knew the position that I would take, and that I had never promised anything. I asked him how he possibly could have believed Henry Kissinger, when Kissinger promised to help, and did give him some help.

And he said, "Yes, yes, we were somewhat skeptical, but we've been urging the United States for 20 years to give us support, and finally the United States was giving us support. How could I not believe the foreign minister of the United States? " He didn't write his memoirs. But there is a young Arab scholar here who went up to interview him. He talked for hours and hours, reminiscing about his experiences in Iran right after the war, and the Soviet Union and why he came back. And he said, no, he wouldn't do that, and these people should forget me. He said, "My life has been a failure. If I had had some success, then that would be different, but everything I have tried to accomplish for my people I have failed. And I don't want anybody to interview me, and I don't want to be remembered."

Do you think he felt betrayed by America?

He was betrayed by America.

During this time in the mid-1970s, what was the driving force behind U.S. policy towards Iraq? How was it evolving?

At the end of the decade, the Iranian revolution had colored our relations with Iraq. Before the Iranian revolution, we had reasonably good relations with Iraq. I used to go to Iraq regularly every January, and my wife would come with me. We had served in Iraq. We like Iraq. We have a lot of Iraqi friends. And I would stay three or four days in Baghdad. . . . My wife came back from the trip in 1990, back to Baghdad where she was staying with the ambassador. The ambassador gave a dinner for the assistant secretary for Middle Eastern affairs, who was in Baghdad at the time. There were a lot of Iraqis, and my wife knew most of them. The assistant secretary sang the praises of Saddam, "What a wonderful person he is. This is a person we can really work with. We have a fantastic relationship. We could make lots of commercial sales, agricultural material," and so on.

And when he left, the Iraqis said to my wife, "What's wrong with this man? Doesn't he have any understanding of who this man [Saddam] is? The man's a monster. How can he be coming and praising this man in such forceful terms to a bunch of Iraqis who know exactly what the man is?"

Why do you think he was doing that?

I presume he thought that Saddam was great. This man had no Middle East experience, and he thought that Saddam was great. He can make lots of sales. He could be very advantageous to us commercially. And then, we had the famous visit of the three senators which came three months later--only three months or four months before the invasion of Kuwait. And I'm sure that you've interviewed some of these senators, and if you haven't, you've had the full report of what they said to Saddam. It was a love feast. "
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 02:03 pm
ican, You're mssing one important point:

General Frank said we don't do civilian body counts.

Your nunbers don't mean anything; get better sources.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 02:06 pm
Iraqi Civilian Count

We have not set up a database for these numbers, rather we direct you Iraq Body Count.

CIVILIAN DEATHS
Latest updates:
Jun 10: 7 bodies in river near Al-Suwayrah
Jun 11: Five in crossfire in Amarah
May 14: 4-5 by roadside bomb, Palestine St., Baghdad
May 14: 2 by car bomb in Mosul
May 15: Four teachers shot dead near Balad Ruz
May 14: Man shot dead in Baiji
Jun 11: Man and woman in car in Fallujah
Jun 10: Sunni political party member near Latifiya
Jun 10: Two shot dead north of Hilla
Jun 10: 5-9 by car bomb, Karrada, Baghdad
Jun 10: 5 butchers shot dead in central Mosul
Jun 10: Former Nineveh deputy governor in Mosul
Jun 10: One by roadside bomb in Hawija
May 7: Three civilians in attack on Iraqi forces, Adhamiyah, Baghdad
May 29: two in minibus explosion, SE Baghdad
May 5: Six people buying alcohol in Yarmouk, Baghdad
May 17: Three construction workers, Al-Jami'ah, Baghdad
May 31: Four civilians in crossfire of insurgents and police, N. Baghdad
May 17: Diplomat's driver intervening in kidnapping, Baghdad
May 30: Four mechanics leaving Bayaa, Baghdad
May 30: baker, real estate broker, store owner in three attacks in Baghdad
May 21-22: nine tortured bodies found around Baghdad
May 22: Two shot in Diyali, NE Baghdad
May 23: streetside cigarette vendor, Baghdad
May 27: a grocer shot, Baghdad
May 27: taxi driver and his son shot, Baghdad
May 27: gardening store owner, Dora, Baghdad
May 24: body, shot in head, Iskan, Baghdad
May 26: Three bodies showing signs of torture, western Baghdad
May 28: Dora council member shot, Rhadhwaniya, Baghdad
May 27: glass store owner shot, Baghdad
May 28: policeman shot in Khadra, western Baghdad
May 28: Electricity ministry employee, Baghdad
May 27: teacher caught in crossfire, checkpoint west of Baghdad
May 26: Doorman by gunmen, Baghdad
May 24: civilian in car by gunmen, Iskan, Baghdad



British Medical Journal Lancet estimates 100,000 civilians killed.

Bush is responsible.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 05:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have no doubt that from time to time Bush et al have spoken of the future of Iraq, but I cannot recall ever having seen an actual plan.

I mean, there are vague outlining of points - such as this - but no real discussion on how we are going to achieve those points, beyond the level of simple slogans.

I think it is also quite telling that there are no metrics for determining when these points will be achieved. I realize that you want to rely upon casualty rate to do so, but don't you think that there are other factors, social, economic, and military, that will have to be in place as well?
Yes there are other factors than casualty rate trends. However, it is the casualty rate trend that I think is the primary factor controlling when it is safe for the Iraqi people for the withdrawal of USA troops. By the way, my source for casualty rate trends is IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/


There is also the question of permanent military bases in Iraq, something that will undoubtedly be a sticking point in the next year or so with the Iraqi government, who has been striking deals with the insurgents which call for the removal of all foreign troops from Iraq.
Cycloptichorn

While I recognize you would like more detailed excerpts, I furnish here only the general excerpts which comprise the plan I previously posted. However, I also posted where you can find the detailed excerpts.

Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Chapter 10
Quote:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


Friday, September 14, 2001
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
Congress wrote:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Chapter 10
Quote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.


emphasis added by ican

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060123-4.html
Quote:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 23, 2006
President Discusses Global War on Terror at Kansas State University
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
...
And the definition of success, by the way, is for there to be a country where the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten the democracy, and where Iraqi security forces can provide for the security of their people, and where Iraq is not a safe haven from which the terrorists -- al Qaeda and its affiliates -- can plot attacks against America.

We got a strategy, and I'm going to keep talking about the strategy -- it will yield a victory. And the strategy is political security and economic in nature. In economic, we're going to help them rebuild their country, help secure their oil supply so they'll have cash flow in order to invest in their people. On the political front, you've seen it -- you've seen what happened in one year's time. It's just amazing, I think. I guess, we take it for granted -- some of us do. I don't. The fact that people have gone from living under the clutches of a tyrant who ordered the murder of thousands of his own citizens, to a society in which people last year started voting -- ... voting for an interim government, voting for a constitution, and then voting for a permanent government under the new constitution. The government is now -- they're beginning to form.
...
Our strategy is twofold: We're on the hunt for the terrorists, and we're training Iraqis. And we're making decent progress. There are more and more Iraqi units in the fight. There's more and more country being turned over to the Iraqis. We got a lot of bases around Iraq, and more of those bases are being given to the Iraqi troops.
...
Look, this enemy cannot beat us. They cannot defeat us militarily. There's no chance. The one weapon they have, which is a lethal weapon, is the willingness to kill people.
...
In there long-term -- in the short-term, we'll stay on the offense; in the long-term, the way to defeat these people is to spread liberty.


emphasis added by ican
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/
Quote:
June 2006
...
This Week, The President Called Together His National Security Team And Other Key Members Of His Cabinet At Camp David To Build On That Progress And Ensure That The New Iraqi Government Succeeds.
...
Prime Minister Maliki Is Focused On Taking Immediate Actions In Three Areas:
1. Improve security by both military and political actions; secure Baghdad; eliminate armed gangs; and promote national reconciliation and the rule of law.
2. Immediately build economic and government capacity; increase production of oil and electricity; and build a foundation for prosperity.
3. Engage the nations of the region and the
...
Examples Of Specific Actions The U.S. Government Will Take In The Short Term To Advance The Iraqi Government Plan
...
>Securing Baghdad: ...
>Securing Ramadi: ...
>Building Confidence In Iraq's Security Forces: ...
>Judicial Capacity: ...
>Bringing Armed Groups Under Control Of The Government: ...
>Reconciliation: ...
>On Economic And Government Capacity-Building: ...
>Oil And Electricity: ...
>On Engaging The Nations Of The World In Iraq's Success:...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 06:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Iraqi Civilian Count
...
British Medical Journal Lancet estimates 100,000 civilians killed.
...

Over what time period does the British Medical Journal Lancet estimate 100,000 civilians killed by violence?

If I were to assume that time period to be 01/01/2003 (when IBC,
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
started counting) to 05/31/2006 (41 months), then the calculated civilian violent death rate would have averaged 2,439 per month over that period. In the period 01/01/2006 to 05/31/2006 (5 months) there were 9,847 civilian violent deaths, or an average of 1,970 per month.

The IBC June 2006 count hasn't been completed yet, but I'm predicting 1,050 civilian violent deaths in June.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 08:02 pm
How many of those killed were killed by coalition forces?
How many died as a result of insurgents blowing up schools,markets and other places where civilians gather?
How many of those killed died in random street crimes,or by other means not connected to US or allied actions?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 08:13 pm
From CNN, June 14, 2006.

Bush: Politics won't force my hand on Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday domestic politics and dipping opinion polls will have no effect on his plan for a stable and democratic Iraq.

"One message I will continue to send to the enemy is, 'Don't count on us leaving before the mission is complete,' " Bush said at a White House news conference.

"Don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen," he said. "I'm going to make decisions not based upon politics but based upon what's best for the United States of America." (Transcript of news conference)

"What you hear from me no matter what these polls and all the business look like, is that it's worth it, it is necessary and we will succeed," Bush said.

The president said securing a democratic Iraq was a linchpin in the worldwide war on terror because an "international jihadist movement" wants the country for a haven.

"I understand how tough it is for the American people to reconcile death on their TV screens when the president's saying we're making incremental progress toward an important goal.

"But what I hope they understand is how important it is we succeed in Iraq, that the country is more dangerous -- the world is more dangerous if we don't," Bush said.

Less than 24 hours after a surprise visit to Baghdad, Bush said he was energized and inspired after a face-to-face meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. (Full story)

Speaking of the new Iraqi government, the president said he was "impressed with their desire to succeed." (Watch Bush explain how trip made a difference -- 12:11)

He said the United States would "keep its word" to help Iraq "govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself" and "build a lasting democracy in the Middle East."

Bush praised al-Maliki for his efforts on uniting Iraq's diverse religious and ethnic groups, divisions among which have led to sectarian attacks that have left thousands dead.

"People know they've got to reconcile the past in order to have a bright future," the president said. He said Washington will try to get Iraqi leaders together with "leaders from countries like South Africa to share their experiences with this new government to help them reconcile the past."

Bush also said the Iraqi government must "root out corruption at all levels."

He said the United States would encourage governments to "pay up" on pledges of aid made to Iraq, which he said are now $3 billion, about $10 billion short. He said he would send Deputy Treasury Secretary Bob Kimmitt and State Department counselor Phil Zelikow to the United Nations and around the world to secure financial support.

Bush's first trip to Iraq since November 2003 -- and his first to leave the security of Baghdad's airport -- came after al-Maliki finalized his Cabinet and terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed.

U.S. opinion polls suggest support for the war is continuing to decline, and some Democrats are increasing pressure to withdraw troops. In response, the White House in recent months has taken a more measured tone when talking about the war, staying away from exuberant claims while emphasizing that steady progress is being made despite the violence. (Full story)

Bush said that the Iraq trip was exciting and that it was "an unbelievable feeling" as he watched in the cockpit of Air Force One as the 747 descended into Baghdad, which he acknowledged was still "a dangerous place."

He touched briefly on other subjects during the news conference:


The president said he "took a sigh of relief " when it was announced Tuesday that his top political adviser, Karl Rove, would not face prosecution in the CIA leak case. (Full story)

Bush said he'd like to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying its existence "provides an excuse" for criticism that the United States doesn't uphold American values it espouses to the world. But he said security must be ensured before detainees are released.

He said the midterm elections will hinge on "who's got the plan that will enable us to succeed in Iraq and keep the economy growing."

The president urged Congress to make tax cuts permanent because he said those cuts help fuel economic growth.








Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/14/bush.newser
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 05:49 am
mm wrote:
How many of those killed were killed by coalition forces?
How many died as a result of insurgents blowing up schools,markets and other places where civilians gather?
How many of those killed died in random street crimes,or by other means not connected to US or allied actions?


How many of those killed are the result of our invasion and the incompetant manner in which this invasion was conducted?

All of them.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 06:54 am
xingu wrote:
mm wrote:
How many of those killed were killed by coalition forces?
How many died as a result of insurgents blowing up schools,markets and other places where civilians gather?
How many of those killed died in random street crimes,or by other means not connected to US or allied actions?


How many of those killed are the result of our invasion and the incompetant manner in which this invasion was conducted?

All of them.


So,if a husband shoots his wife in a rage,thats the fault of the invasion?
If a man dies after being mugged,thats the fault of the invasion?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 06:58 am
The breakdown of law and order leads to far more street crimes. Of course Saddam Husseins regeim was not crime free but there is far more crime because of our invasion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 09:56 am
Far more crimes and far more Iraqi casualties. On top of that, no security and no electricity. What a democracy!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 11:24 am
mysteryman wrote:
How many of those killed were killed by coalition forces?
How many died as a result of insurgents blowing up schools,markets and other places where civilians gather?
How many of those killed died in random street crimes,or by other means not connected to US or allied actions?

First of all, a prior British Medical Journal Lancet estimate of 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed violently in 2003 was liebral pseudology. According to Britannica, total deaths due to all causes -- not just civilian violent deaths -- in Iraq during the years 1996 thru 2005 were as follows:
1996 = 223,000;
1997 = 209,000;
1998 = 183,000;
1999 = 166,000
2001 = 145,000;
2002 = 144,000;
2003 = 146,000;
2004 = 147,000;
2005 = 159,000.


Also, according to IBC's posted record,
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
total Iraqi civilian violent deaths 2003 thru 2005 were 33,000, and in the first 5 months of 2006 were almost 9,900.

Second, according to the IBC count, 2003 to present, less than 10% of Iraqi civilian violent deaths were attributable to the actions of coalition forces.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 11:49 am
xingu wrote:
The breakdown of law and order leads to far more street crimes. Of course Saddam Husseins regeim was not crime free but there is far more crime because of our invasion.
Rolling Eyes
Right Exclamation Shocked Almost all of the crime against the Iraqi people, 1979 to March 19, 2003, was committed by the Iraqi government, while Saddam's regime was still in power.

liebral pseudology: crime committed by the Saddam government is not a breakdown in law and order.

liebral pseudology: crime committed in Iraq by itm against civilians is the fault of those who have been attempting to defend Iraqi civilians against itm

liebral pseudology: he who defends himself and/or those he loves against itm is a criminal.

Note:
(1) pseudology = falsity, lies; falsifying, lying;
(2) itm = inhuman terrorist malignancy = those who murder civilians + those who abet the murder of civilians + those who advocate the murder of civilians + those who are silent witnesses to the murder of civilians + those who allow the murderers of civilians sanctuary.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 12:21 pm
Very Happy HAPPY 4TH OF JULY[/b] Very Happy

Quote:
The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totaly unworth the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.


Very Happy 12 years, 8 months later we obtained[/b] Very Happy

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 04:29 pm
ican wrote:
Note:
(1) pseudology = falsity, lies; falsifying, lying;


Looks like a perfect descriptor for George W Bush.

a. We don't torture prisoners.
b. When we wiretap, we get a court order.
c. Saddam has a program to develop nuklur weapons.
d. Each life is precious. (re: Teri Schiavo)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 04:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican wrote:
Note:
(1) pseudology = falsity, lies; falsifying, lying;

Looks like a perfect descriptor for George W Bush....

I think it a perfect descriptor for those who post it's "a perfect descriptor for George W Bush" and post that the USA is responsible for the murders of civilians perpetrated by the itm.

More importantly, it's a "a perfect descriptor" for itm.
(2) itm = inhuman terrorist malignancy = those who murder civilians + those who abet the murder of civilians + those who advocate the murder of civilians + those who are silent witnesses to the murder of civilians + those who allow the murderers of civilians sanctuary.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 01:11 am
A comment from today's Guardian (page 24 - online)
[N.B.: 'liberal' and 'democratic' is not related to the American English.]

Quote:
Only a UN-led peace process can halt the Iraq catastrophe

The government cannot justify the continuing presence of our troops unless it shows it has learned from its failures


Menzies Campbell



The British and American governments like to pretend that things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005 the number of car and roadside bombs doubled, and suicide bombs trebled. Electricity supplies and oil production are still below prewar levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of civil war. The illegal invasion, launched on a flawed prospectus and with little understanding of the consequences, has resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 coalition soldiers, 40,000 civilians and many UN and humanitarian workers.

Since 2003 the coalition has met neither its obligations nor its objectives. There was a catastrophic failure to plan for postwar Iraq, followed by misjudgment and incompetence. This has been overlaid by a disproportionate use of military force, including gross human rights abuses. There are nearly 30,000 people being held without trial in Iraq. These failures and misjudgments have perpetuated the insurgency, increased corruption and criminality, and inhibited improvements to the lives of Iraqis. We must now face the possibility that Iraq could become a failed state. That would have devastating economic and security consequences for the region, and would risk taking the current humanitarian disaster to a completely new level.

The catalogue of errors means the capacity of the UK and the US to play a positive role in redeeming the situation is severely diminished. The legitimacy of the coalition, always questionable, is now simply not accepted by most Iraqis. A 2005 poll for the British Ministry of Defence found that eight out of 10 Iraqis strongly opposed the presence of coalition forces. Between 70%-90% want to see a timeline for the withdrawal of coalition troops.

Faced with this reality, the British and American governments seem to be in denial. The last time the British government allotted parliamentary time for a full debate on Iraq was July 20 2004, which was only the second occasion since March 18 2003. It appears to be running scared of critical evaluation. The coalition does not have an exit strategy, nor does it have a strategy for staying. But to continue as it has been is not a credible option. The British and US governments require a coherent stabilisation and exit strategy. The early moves by Iraq's government of national unity to form a reconciliation plan are positive, but vague on detail.

The foundation of a new strategy should be a peace process led by the UN to accelerate national reconciliation and the internationalisation of support for Iraq. If the problems of internecine conflict within Iraq have international dimensions, so too must the solutions. A new strategy would seek to build on the policies set out by the Iraqi prime minister and work towards an international "compact", similar to that agreed with Afghanistan, setting out the commitments of all sides and a comprehensive security and reconstruction strategy.

Only an international solution can shore up the legitimacy and effectiveness of Iraq's government, improve the delivery of essential services and facilitate the end of the militarisation. Every further association with the US and the UK taints the Iraqi administration.

What should that solution contain? First, establishing a regional contact group would strengthen the engagement of Iraq's neighbours, and require them to play a constructive role in reconstruction. A contact group could play a significant role in talking to insurgent groups, improving border controls and promoting economic stability.

Second, enhanced measures to train, equip and professionalise Iraqi security forces are needed to de-politicise them and improve security. Coalition forces should move towards training, advising and equipping. Third, a comprehensive, UN-led disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration strategy is necessary to make a reality of the Iraqi prime minister's policy that the militias must merge with the national security forces.

Fourth, there should be an end to systematic indefinite detentions by Iraqi and US forces, and full access should be granted to UN human rights monitors and the Red Cross. Fifth, the reconstruction process must be expedited and legitimised (60% of Iraqis believe the UN should have the lead role). Increasing UNDP and the World Bank involvement would enhance transparency and accountability. Donors must play their part and deliver on their aid pledges.

Sixth, Iraq needs a programme for phased security transfer and withdrawal of coalition troops. The Iraqis view them as occupiers. A limited British withdrawal is taking place but US troops are redeploying in other parts of the country. The UK should aim to achieve a series of withdrawals, in parallel with the US, according to milestones in the stabilisation and reconstruction process. A transparent agreement with the Iraqi administration would help to counter the perception of occupation and illegitimacy.

I have been supportive of British efforts to bring stability to Iraq. But, support for the government cannot be unconditional. Unless it shows that it has learned from its failures and is ready to look afresh at the way out of the Iraqi quagmire, it will be impossible to justify the continuing presence of British forces in Iraq. With distressing regularity, the Commons pays tribute to the brave men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq. If the government cannot explain why it is necessary that they should make the ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared to bring them home.

ยท Menzies Campbell is leader of the Liberal Democrats
[email protected]

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z1xxed.jpg
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 01:22 am
Thanks for that post, Walter.

Menzies is a Scot, you know. He talks sense.

McT
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jul, 2006 06:50 am
The picture is worth a thousand words too. I am just amazed at the willful blindness of the administration and it's parroting supporters.
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 0.06 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 01:18:02