THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

This is the title that Setanta gave to this version of his long series:

Quote:

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD

.

Why is it that some here continue to perceive the state of ican711nm's head to be on topic?

The Secretary is going to be leaving over the weekend. She'll be in London for the Afghan Conference, which is going to run over two days on the 31st of January and the 1st of February. She also has a meeting, as you know, of the Quartet slated for Monday late afternoon and then a dinner with ministers from the EU-3 countries: Britain, France and Germany, from Russia and from China. And that dinner's going to be devoted to the question of Iran. You'll remember that this group has met before at a lower level, at political director's level, both in November and also ten days ago in London to discuss that Iran issue.
In addition to that, there will be a meeting, a contact group ministerial meeting on Kosovo on the afternoon of the 31st of January to discuss the United Nation's negotiations that are considering the future of Kosovo. So it's going to be a very active few days for the Secretary and for those of us going with her and also an important conference on Afghanistan and let me take you through that.
You know that U.S. policy towards Afghanistan since 2001 has been to support the development of a democratic government, to see elections in that country, and we've seen both of that -- both of those things occur, to have a very substantial U.S. military assistance program to train an Afghanistan National Army and the police and to provide, through Operation Enduring Freedom, the coalition security along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border and to assist NATO. We've also been focused on trying to help the Afghans develop a market economy, to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, to focus on the narcotics problem, which is a severe problem which limits all the national goals of Afghanistan. And you'll remember that several years ago there was an international meeting in Berlin, the Bonn I should say, designed to produce international economic and military support for Afghanistan and provide a structure for that support. This conference in London is the logical successor to the Bonn conference, but it takes place at a very different time.
There have been presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan. There is a fully formed sovereign government in place. There's been a real revolution in terms of the security situation of the activities of the international security forces, and so the idea that President Karzai and Prime Minister Blair and President Bush and Kofi Annan had is that we all should get together, all the nations assisting Afghanistan, for another conference to look forward at a different time and to design a different type of international assistance to Afghanistan.
The United States, Secretary Rice leading the U.S. delegation, will announce a major financial contribution for the next fiscal year for our economic and our military support to Afghanistan. That builds on the extensive support, nearly $10 billion that the United States has given in all respects to Afghanistan in the past five years: 2001 to 2006. In the London -- at the London conference we'll see, I think a number of countries step forward, including our own, to commit to a certain level of economic and military assistance over the year or two ahead.

Do you have information on the Afghan Conference in London this week?

ican711nm wrote:

What should the USA and Britain have done instead?

What do you think would have been the consequences of doing that instead?

I know that an armed gang's arial assault on mainland America is not a credible not just cause for an invasion of another country.

Please don't trouble to reply to this, as I've seen enough of your opinions before.

ican711nm wrote:

This is the title that Setanta gave to this version of his long series:

Quote:

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD

.

Why is it that some here continue to perceive the state of ican711nm's head to be on topic?

The title of this thread does not refer to you
That is of course exactly my point

--your obsessive egocentrism notwithstanding. The second thread in this series was given the title "The US, the UN and Iraq" by Jespah, and i am simply maintaining that title in one form or another--and this is the tenth thread. The original thread was entitled "Anti War Movement," and was authored by Walter Hinteler--so it is absurd (not to say stupid) to refer to this as "my" long series.
I apologize! I should have written:
This is the title that Setanta gave to this latest thread of a long series of threads: [quote]THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD

The 'malignancy' persist ..... groan

Was "an armed gang's arial assault on mainland America not just cause for an invasion of" either Afghanistan or Iraq given that both countries allowed sanctuary to the same armed gang?

MEASURABLE PROGRESS

ican711nm wrote:

The USA and Iraq's solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. Iraq and the USA have completed five of seven steps toward 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) Organize the newly elected Iraq government.
(7) Train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(8) Remove the USA military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.

The USA will withdraw from Iraq in phases in harmony with the evolution of Iraq's self-governance. As a consequence, both Iraqis and Americans will in their mutual self-interest achieve the following goals:
(A) Stop the terrorists and Saddamists from threatening Iraq's democracy;
(B) Enable Iraqi security forces to protect their own people;
(C) Prevent Iraq from becoming a potential safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the USA and other countries.

ican711nm wrote:

MEASURABLE PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING GOAL (A)

Saddam's regime murdered more than 720,000 Iraq civilian men, women, and children over 30 years.

Saddamists and al-Qaeda murdered, and Coalition killed 32,444 ] Iraq civilian men, women, and children from 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2005.

Saddamists and al-Qaeda murdered, and Coalition killed 356 Iraq civilian men, women, and children from 1/1/2006 to 1/22/2006.

On average, Saddam's regime murdered more than 2,000 Iraq civilian men, women, and children per month over 30 years.

On average, Saddamists and al-Qaeda murdered, and Coalition killed 901 Iraq civilian men, women, and children per month from 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2005.

Projection based on daily average, Saddamists and al-Qaeda will have murdered, and Coalition will have killed 502 Iraq civilian men, women, and children in the month from 1/1/2006 to 1/31/2006.

That will result in a total of 32,444 + 502 = 32,946; then divide that by 37 and you will get the new monthly average of 890.

That would result in a reduction of the monthly average from 901 to 890 and would surely be a little measurable progress.

delete

edgarblythe wrote:

delete

guffaw

Quote:

Was "an armed gang's arial assault on mainland America not just cause for an invasion of" either Afghanistan or Iraq given that both countries allowed sanctuary to the same armed gang?

No, Ican. It was not a just cause for invasion. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq "allowed sanctuary" to a certain armed gang any more than other countries have found, or could find, hidden cells of terrorists within their borders, unwanted, unencouraged, and unsanctioned.
We disagree! The evidence is conclusive. Both Afghanistan's and Iraq's governments allowed sanctuary to al Qaeda knowingly, willingly, and deliberately. I agree that there are governments of other countries who are doing the same thing. Whether there are only 4 other countries doing that or 40 other countries doing that, does not eliminate the necessity for removing those governments we can remove to stop them from doing that.

Your argument is analogous to:
(1) Since we cannot remove all governments that allow sanctuary to those that have declared war against us, we should not attempt to remove any governments that allow sanctuary to those that have declared war against us;
(2) Since we cannot remove all governments that allow sanctuary to those that have murdered some of us, we should not attempt to remove any governments that allow sanctuary to those that have murdered some of us;
(3) Since we cannot execute all those who have murdered, we should not attempt to execute any of those who have murdered;
(4) Since we cannot incarcerate all those who have murdered, we should not attempt to incarcerate any of those who have murdered;
(5) Since we cannot save the lives of all likely victims of murderers, we should not attempt to save the lives of any likely victims of murderers.

I don't understand such thinking.

That question was easy to answer.

There are more difficult ones. Now that we are inextricably tied up with Iraq's future, due to our own invasiveness, how and where do we find the wisdom to rule this country without ruling it.

That is a rhetorical question, not meant to be answered, only batted back and forth, reasonably.
We try what we think will work. When that doesn't work well enough we try to improve what we are doing. When that doesn't work well enough we persevere until we find ways that do work well enough.

Currently, we are making measurable progress toward a way or ways that do work well enough.

Kara wrote:

Quote:

Was "an armed gang's arial assault on mainland America not just cause for an invasion of" either Afghanistan or Iraq given that both countries allowed sanctuary to the same armed gang?

No, Ican. It was not a just cause for invasion. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq "allowed sanctuary" to a certain armed gang any more than other countries have found, or could find, hidden cells of terrorists within their borders, unwanted, unencouraged, and unsanctioned.
We disagree! The evidence is conclusive. Both Afghanistan's and Iraq's governments allowed sanctuary to al Qaeda knowingly, willingly, and deliberately. I agree that there are governments of other countries who are doing the same thing. Whether there are only 4 other countries doing that or 40 other countries doing that, does not eliminate the necessity for removing those governments we can remove to stop them from doing that.

Your argument is analogous to:
(1) Since we cannot remove all governments that allow sanctuary to those that have declared war against us, we should not attempt to remove any governments that allow sanctuary to those that have declared war against us;
(2) Since we cannot remove all governments that allow sanctuary to those that have murdered some of us, we should not attempt to remove any governments that allow sanctuary to those that have murdered some of us;
(3) Since we cannot execute all those who have murdered, we should not attempt to execute any of those who have murdered;
(4) Since we cannot incarcerate all those who have murdered, we should not attempt to incarcerate any of those who have murdered;
(5) Since we cannot save the lives of all likely victims of murderers, we should not attempt to save the lives of any likely victims of murderers.

I don't understand such thinking.

That question was easy to answer.

There are more difficult ones. Now that we are inextricably tied up with Iraq's future, due to our own invasiveness, how and where do we find the wisdom to rule this country without ruling it.

That is a rhetorical question, not meant to be answered, only batted back and forth, reasonably.
We try what we think will work. When that doesn't work well enough we try to improve what we are doing. When that doesn't work well enough we persevere until we find ways that do work well enough.

Currently, we are making measurable progress toward a way or ways that do work well enough.

How do Islamic extremist and right wing evangelicals differ in respective theocracies? Or do they?