0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 04:55 pm
Quote:
They did not lie.


There isn't an iota of evidence to support this assertion, and much that refutes it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:43 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
what is there to mischaracterize, george ?

the administration began with;

1) weapons of mass destruction such as gas and biological.
False! The administration did not begin with "weapons of mass destruction such as gas and biological"

The administration did begin with:
(1) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
[quote]We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


(2) 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.


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


(4) Wednesday, October 16, 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and gave two subsequently verified, primary and sufficient reasons for doing so:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;


But, you protest Bush and Congress also said Iraq possessed WMD and abetted 9/11 when it did not. But, I protest that 19 terrorists, first trained in Afghanistan, armed with box cutters and no WMD, hijacked four airliners, and flew them into American buildings or into the ground killing almost 3,000 American civilians.

If 19 terrorists could do that not abetted by Iraq, what could 20,000 do abetted by Iraq?

9-11 Commission Report, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78
[/color]

...

do you really believe that mainstream america would have agreed to send troops on the scale that has been done, garner 20,000 agregiously wounded, lose nearly 2600 american lives and spend 400 BILLION dollars.... for the sole purpose of installing "democracy" in iraq ?
...
NO, I don't believe "that mainstream america would have agreed to send troops on the scale that has been done ... for the sole purpose of installing "democracy" in iraq."

However I do believe that mainstream america did agree "to send troops on the scale that has been done ... for the sole purpose of" permanently ending al-Qaeda's sanctuary "in Iraq." To accomplish that it is necessary to replace Iraq's former government that allowed al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq with a government that would not allow al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

Of course, the same is true for Afghanistan. "Mainstream america" did agree "to send troops on the scale that has been done for the sole purpose of" permanently ending al-Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. To accomplish that it was necessary to replace Afghanistan's former government that allowed al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan with a government that would not allow al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan.
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:47 pm
Quote:
However I do believe that mainstream america did agree "to send troops on the scale that has been done ... for the sole purpose of" permanently ending al-Qaeda's sanctuary "in Iraq." To accomplish that it is necessary to replace Iraq's former government that allowed al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq with a government that would not allow al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.


Incorrect. Mainstream America agreed to send troops for the purpose of finding the WMD that Bush assured were there. You always seem to leave that part out, yet it was the prime motivator of Bush's arguments and the prime deciding factor for the public.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:50 pm
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/3/27/121033/771

Quote:
The Shiites in Power Accuse the US of "Organized Crime"


Le Figaro with AFP

Monday 27 March 2006

Argument swells in Baghdad the day after a raid conducted against Shiites that left twenty of them dead. While the American Army denies any involvement, the Governor of Baghdad announces the suspension of his cooperation with the United States. The Shiite alliance in power demands a transfer of responsibility for the maintenance of order in the country.

The bloody raid conducted Sunday in north Baghdad against Shiites assembled in a mosque in the country's capital continues to elicit reactions. Shiite leaders, who suggest there were around twenty deaths, denounce an American bungle. The Unified Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition in power, describes that operation as a "massacre" and demands that the American government cede responsibility for the maintenance of order to the Iraqi government.

"American forces and Iraqi Special Forces committed an odious crime when they attacked the Al-Mustapha Mosque in the Ur neighborhood," the Shiite bloc asserts in a communiqué. "It's an organized crime with serious political and security implications. It aims to incite a civil war," the Shiites insist. "To kill such a great number of the faithful of the family of the Prophet after handcuffing and torturing them is indefensible. It's an attack on the dignity of Iraqis that strips away any credibility from the slogans of freedom, democracy and pluralism flaunted by the American administration," the communiqué concludes.

For his part, the Governor of Baghdad announced his intention of suspending all cooperation with American forces until an independent investigation is opened to determine what really happened. "We have decided today to cease all political and logistical cooperation with American forces," declared Hussein al Tahan, adding that the United States embassy and the Iraqi Defense Ministry should be associated with the investigation, but not the American military.

As for the Minister of the Interior, he described the raid as "unjustified aggression against the faithful as they prayed in a mosque."

US Army Denies

Giving an account of the operation that elicited such intense reactions, including an indignant one from Jawad al-Maliki, an intimate of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, the American Army denied all responsibility. According to the United States, the operation was planned and executed by Iraqi Special Forces. The role of American Special Forces was limited to "advising Iraqi forces," an American Army communiqué emphasized.

The American Army is accused of repeated foul-ups, including a recent one to the north of Baghdad and another in November to the west of Baghdad, in which civilians were killed.

Deadly Attack Against Iraqi Recruits

40 dead, 20 wounded. The suicide attack committed Monday morning against the American-Iraqi Tamara base, close to Mosul, is the bloodiest against recruits for the Iraqi security forces since January, when a suicide bomber killed 70 in Ramadi.

Strengthening Iraqi security forces is at the center of both Iraqi and American authorities' policy. They see it as the best way to face the rebellion and prepare for the departure of foreign forces. But these forces and their recruitment centers are periodically targeted by the rebels, who thus seek to dissuade Iraqis from joining the ranks of the police and the army.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher. [/quote]

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 06:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
They did not lie.


There isn't an iota of evidence to support this assertion, and much that refutes it.

Cycloptichorn

What evidence refutes: "Bush and his crew" did not lie?

I've provided you more than an iota of evidence "Bush and his crew" did not lie.

However, in America, unlike in France, the burden of proof falls on the accuser to prove guilt rather than on the accused to prove innocence.

If "Bush and his crew" were to be proved guilty of lying that would clearly be an impeachable offense. More serious than that, it would be a convictable and removal offense.

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
...
Article II
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 06:16 pm
Give it time, Ican.

In the meantime-

Quote:
وزارة الدفاع تدعو المواطنين الى عدم الانصياع لاوامر دوريات الجيش والشرطة الليلية اذا لم تكن برفقة قوات التحالف العاملة في تلك المنطقة
The translation:

"The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area."

That's how messed up the country is at this point.

We switched to another channel, the "Baghdad" channel (allied with Muhsin Abdul Hameed and his group) and they had the same news item, but instead of the general "coalition forces" they had "American coalition forces". We checked two other channels. Iraqiya (pro-Da'awa) didn't mention it and Forat (pro-SCIRI) also didn't have it on their news ticker.

We discussed it today as it was repeated on another channel.

"So what does it mean?" My cousin's wife asked as we sat gathered at lunch.

"It means if they come at night and want to raid the house, we don't have to let them in." I answered.

"They're not exactly asking your permission," E. pointed out. "They break the door down and take people away- or have you forgotten?"

"Well according to the Ministry of Defense, we can shoot at them, right? It's trespassing-they can be considered burglars or abductors…" I replied.

The cousin shook his head, "If your family is inside the house- you're not going to shoot at them. They come in groups, remember? They come armed and in large groups- shooting at them or resisting them would endanger people inside of the house."

"Besides that, when they first attack, how can you be sure they DON'T have Americans with them?" E. asked.

We sat drinking tea, mulling over the possibilities. It confirmed what has been obvious to Iraqis since the beginning- the Iraqi security forces are actually militias allied to religious and political parties.

But it also brings to light other worrisome issues. The situation is so bad on the security front that the top two ministries in charge of protecting Iraqi civilians cannot trust each other. The Ministry of Defense can't even trust its own personnel, unless they are "accompanied by American coalition forces".

It really is difficult to understand what is happening lately. We hear about talks between Americans and Iran over security in Iraq, and then American ambassador in Iraq accuses Iran of funding militias inside of the country. Today there are claims that Americans killed between 20 to 30 men from Sadr's militia in an attack on a husseiniya yesterday. The Americans are claiming that responsibility for the attack should be placed on Iraqi security forces (the same security forces they are constantly commending).

All of this directly contradicts claims by Bush and other American politicians that Iraqi troops and security forces are in control of the situation. Or maybe they are in control- just not in a good way.

They've been finding corpses all over Baghdad for weeks now- and it's always the same: holes drilled in the head, multiple shots or strangulation, like the victims were hung. Execution, militia style. Many of the people were taken from their homes by security forces- police or special army brigades… Some of them were rounded up from mosques.


A few days ago we went to pick up one of my female cousins from college. Her college happens to be quite close to the local morgue. E., our cousin L., and I all sat in the car which, due to traffic, we parked slightly further away from the college to wait for our other cousin. I looked over at the commotion near the morgue.

There were dozens of people- mostly men- standing around in a bleak group. Some of them smoked cigarettes, others leaned on cars or pick-up trucks... Their expressions varied- grief, horror, resignation. On some faces, there was an anxious look of combined dread and anticipation. It's a very specific look, one you will find only outside the Baghdad morgue. The eyes are wide and bloodshot, as if searching for something, the brow is furrowed, the jaw is set and the mouth is a thin frown. It's a look that tells you they are walking into the morgue, where the bodies lay in rows, and that they pray they do not find what they are looking for.

The cousin sighed heavily and told us to open a couple of windows and lock the doors- he was going to check the morgue. A month before, his wife's uncle had been taken away from a mosque during prayer- they've yet to find him. Every two days, someone from the family goes to the morgue to see if his body was brought in. "Pray I don't find him… or rather... I just- we hate the uncertainty." My cousin sighed heavily and got out of the car. I said a silent prayer as he crossed the street and disappeared into the crowd.

E. and I waited patiently for H., who was still inside the college and for L. who was in the morgue. The minutes stretched and E. and I sat silently- smalltalk seeming almost blasphemous under the circumstances. L. came out first. I watched him tensely and found myself chewing away at my lower lip, "Did he find him? Inshalla he didn't find him…" I said to no one in particular. As he got closer to the car, he shook his head. His face was immobile and grim, but behind the grim expression, we could see relief, "He's not there. Hamdulilah [Thank God]."

"Hamdulilah" E. and I repeated the words in unison.

WE all looked back at the morgue. Most of the cars had simple, narrow wooden coffins on top of them, in anticipation of the son or daughter or brother. One frenzied woman in a black abaya was struggling to make her way inside, two relatives holding her back. A third man was reaching up to untie the coffin tied to the top of their car.

"See that woman- they found her son. I saw them identifying him. A bullet to the head." The woman continued to struggle, her legs suddenly buckling under her, her wails filling the afternoon, and although it was surprisingly warm that day, I pulled at my sleeves, trying to cover my suddenly cold fingers.

We continued to watch the various scenes of grief, anger, frustration and every once in a while, an almost tangible relief as someone left the morgue having not found what they dreaded most to find- eyes watery from the smell, the step slightly lighter than when they went in, having been given a temporary reprieve from the worry of claiming a loved one from the morgue…


- posted by river @ 9:51 PM


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 06:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Mainstream America agreed to send troops for the purpose of finding the WMD that Bush assured were there. You always seem to leave that part out, yet it was the prime motivator of Bush's arguments and the prime deciding factor for the public.
Cycloptichorn

I think it more probable that what I think mainstream America agreed to is correct, and your perception of what you think mainstream America agreed to is incorrect. However, I do think that the LIEbral opinion-news media's false promotion of Bush's false supplementary WMD allegation, as Bush's main reason, has influenced a minority of Americans.

Afghanistan's government was neither accused of possessing WMD nor did it possess WMD, but mainstream America agreed to Afghanistan's invasion too.

The primary reason for invading Afghanistan (i.e., al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan) plus the following, support my contention that the false allegation of WMD possession by Iraq was a supplementary reason and not the primary reason for invading Iraq:
Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, 2/5/2003, The section on "sinister nexus"
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
Quote:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Note: this allegation was never refuted by Saddam's regime, while the Iraq WMD and Iraq abetting 9/11 allegations were refuted by Saddam's regime

Because our troops actually confirmed the presence of these same terrorists in northeastern Iraq in the first weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the phrase, "the potentially much more sinister nexus" provides support to my contention that the false allegation of Iraq's possession of WMD was a supplementary reason and not the primary reason for invading Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 09:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Why does this thread keep starting over? Didn't Craven make it clear a long, long time ago that the pages load no slower and that there is no benefit whatsoever in doing so... and further that in so doing you deny A2K the record for the most hit thread of all time?


Oh..... I misread your post at first.

I was prepared to answer that it's not starting over, it's just icann spamming with the same old BS.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 09:30 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you look closely, you can actually see visions of post-war Japan and Germany dancing in their eyes.
Good on you to reasonably sum up PNAC. Most of your "lies" are in fact foolish political shortcomings, but not lies. Exaggeration is standard in politics and I would agree it's a pity that Bush oversold with such vigor... but I can't agree that his mistakes added up to lies, let alone treason. I further disagree that the American people wouldn't have bought it without the overselling. Post 9-11, the general public's mindset shifted as much as the President's. I think we all re-assessed our threat tolerance and a majority could easily have been convinced pulling the plug on Iraq's decade of defiance was the prudent thing to do. We'll never know, but you are just as wrong to assume they wouldn't as I am to assume they would have. There is room to reasonably disagree here.

There is also room to reasonably disagree on what post-war Iraq will look like. "Japan and Germany"? I believe eventually this is possible. It's a tougher row to hoe but I don't think the people are any less deserving nor will I ever believe they are incapable of embracing self-determination. Should this opinion ever be proven correct; the United States of America will have given Iraqis the greatest gift of all. Life. A real one.

Setanta wrote:
Such as the single biased side which suggests that a "democratic" government in Iraq not be dominated by the Shi'ites, who are merely the overwhelming majority of the population. So much for bringing "democracy" to the middle east . . .
That would be a bit silly wouldn't it? Opining one way or another is hardly out of line, however. Our vested stake in their forming a viable permanent government for themselves should be quite evident. Here in the U.S. we have a government dominated by the "Whites", who are merely the overwhelming majority of the population. I think it's still fair to call us a "democracy". Were we to elect a clansman to the top office; I think the world would have something to say about it.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Since Bush is seen by the majority of American People to be doing a piss-poor job, it only follows that the republicans should replace Bush with somebody more agreeable to Americans.
If Bush were eligible in 2008, and his numbers remained this poor, do you think they wouldn't?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
and spend 4 BILLION dollars....


You forgot the words per half month.

The CBO estimates that the war is costing 9 billion a month these days.
I don't have handy figures; but you ignore the fact that maintaining Iraq's no fly zones and otherwise failing to implement the terms of the Cease-Fire weren't exactly free of expense ... and showed no signs of ever going away. Nor is it quantifiable what effect continuing to cry wolf with no teeth could have cost us in terms of further terrorist activity, both State and non-State alike. We surely disagree on what the ultimate expense, in terms of lives and $$$ might have been, arbitrarily, but surely you can admit that here too, there is room for reasonable disagreement.


Assertion of my own: In the mean time some75% of Iraqis have repeatedly demonstrated their dedication to self determination, despite horrific threats, and dodged bombs and bullets to do so. I remain hopeful that the cooler heads will prevail; thinking those decades of peering into the abyss will ultimately convince the collective to steer clear of it in the future. The final chapter has yet to be written and I remain optimistic that the tiny tastes of freedom they've enjoyed to date will prove too much to sacrifice to rival hatred. I continue to believe people are people; the world over, and collectively all majorities will selfishly embrace the freedoms of self-determination, if someone gives them a chance. We will see.

Unless or until the doomsayers predictions are realized, and perhaps even if; our casualty statistics pale in comparison to the failures in Vietnam and/or Korea… even if this proves to be unsuccessful. Conversely; this may very well prove to be a turning point in Global Civilization. I continue to believe the potential rewards outweigh the risks.

Peace, out.

(Please spare me any and all fallacious appeals to pity.)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 09:40 pm
Magginkat wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Why does this thread keep starting over? Didn't Craven make it clear a long, long time ago that the pages load no slower and that there is no benefit whatsoever in doing so... and further that in so doing you deny A2K the record for the most hit thread of all time?


Oh..... I misread your post at first.

I was prepared to answer that it's not starting over, it's just icann spamming with the same old BS.
I have to admire his stamina, myself.

Still, it is a pity to deny Craven the record and any notoriety and/or site-maintaining advertisements it could have attracted, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 03:05 am
blueflame1 wrote:
VIDEO - Hardball Rips Bush, Blair & Cheney Over Pre-Iraq Memo

Prompted by a new report in The New York Times, MSNBC's Hardball takes a fresh look at a history of the Iraq war through the lens of a January 31, 2003 memo detailing a White House meeting between Bush and Blair.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002612.htm


Thanks, Blueflame.
Everyone here should look at that very instructive video.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 06:11 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/international/middleeast/29iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"....The surge in violence has shaken confidence in Mr. Jaafari, who has been widely criticized by Iraqis for failing to smash the Sunni-led insurgency, letting Shiite death squads run rampant and doing little on reconstruction.

.....Mr. Jaafari won the Shiite bloc's nomination for prime minister by one vote in a secret ballot of its members of Parliament, beating out the deputy of Mr. Hakim, the bloc's leader. As the largest bloc, with 130 of the 275 seats, the Shiites have the right to nominate the prime minister.

But a two-thirds vote of Parliament is required for approval of the new government. As long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill."
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 06:13 am
Iraqi groups separating out of fear.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801963_pf.html

"Thousands of Iraqis Flee to Avoid Spread Of Violence
Fear, Threats Push Muslim Sects Apart

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; A01



BAGHDAD, March 28 -- Sectarian violence has displaced more than 25,000 Iraqis since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine, a U.N.-affiliated agency said Tuesday, and shelters and tent cities are springing up across central and southern Iraq to house homeless Sunni and Shiite families.

The flight is continuing, according to the International Organization for Migration, which works closely with the United Nations and other groups. The result has been a population exchange as Sunni and Shiite families flee mixed communities for the safety of areas where their own sects predominate."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 07:45 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Such as the single biased side which suggests that a "democratic" government in Iraq not be dominated by the Shi'ites, who are merely the overwhelming majority of the population. So much for bringing "democracy" to the middle east . . .


That would be a bit silly wouldn't it?


It is silly in the extreme to attempt to make the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs and the Shi'ites live together. Prior to Great War, the Turks were certainly never stupid enough to make the attempt. It was Balfour and Churchill, and in particular, Churchill, who envisioned a "Mesopotamia," the result of which was to give England control of Arabia and "Mesopotamia," and thereby, what would one day prove to be the greatest and the next greatest proven reserves of petroleum on earth. The English suffered very badly from the "Iraqi" insurrections which resulted in the 1920s. I'm not going into the detail again--i've warned about this since before the venal theives in this administration began their dirty little war, and i frankly could care less if you never bothered to read, or failed to retain the information--it's freely available in any decent library, or with an online search which isn't simply intended to prove ludicrous contentions such as Iraqi womd or an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda.

What was idiotic, criminally idiotic, murderously idiotic, was the asinine contention that we were going to "bring democracy to the middle east." A claim which was, significantly, not advanced until the womd failed to materialize, and the administration was constantly embarrassed by the question "What are you going to do now?" After all, the PNAC program just calls for seizing Iraq and erecting permanent military bases, it is mute on the subject of how to deal with restless natives--but then, we already have ample evidence that this pack of idiots never think things through before they act.

Quote:
Opining one way or another is hardly out of line, however.


Strawman--i never claimed it was. Neither is it out of line to point out that someone is indulging fantasies, nor is to point out that democracy means the rule of the majority, and that the turds on Pennsylvania avenue were ranting on about bringing democracy to the middle east. That claim was not advanced until after the womd failed to materialize, after no evidence was found of links to al Qaeda, and the clowns came up with their "saving Iraq from a brutal dictator" horseshit, which was never mentioned before the invasion. Once again, the idiots started something for which they were not prepared, and upon which they were uninformed--because they would otherwise have realized that a democracy means a Shi'ite dominated Iraq.


Quote:
Our vested stake in their forming a viable permanent government for themselves should be quite evident.


What vested stake do you allege the United States has in the particular form of the government of that abortion of a nation? If you're going to trot out you tedious argument about the threat of womd or of terrorism, then you just make the case i made, and you argued against, in the thread on Iran, to the effect that the only way to assure that there will never be womd or a terrorist haven is permanent military occupation.

No, nothing of the kind is evident, nor is there any basis for your inferential contention that there cannot be a "viable" government which is not Shi'ite dominated. Upon what basis are you prepared to contend that a Shi'ite dominated government would not be viable?


Quote:
Here in the U.S. we have a government dominated by the "Whites", who are merely the overwhelming majority of the population.


Actually, the most significant demographic in the country is that the majority of adults are women--but women do not dominate the government. Do you suggest with that tripe that "non-whites" should be assured the right to veto any appointments, to topple any government formed here which they consider will not take sufficient account of their interests? Because that is what you are suggesting the Kurds and Sunni Arabs in Iraq should be able to do--that is, if you are discussing the same topic i was when i responded to McG, and from which response you selected a portion, which you then edited, in order to reply to me. If you're attempting to discuss anything different, then your entire response is a strawman, as that is what i was discussing.

Quote:
I think it's still fair to call us a "democracy".


Which reflects how on the government Iraq? Iraq is a nation of 26,000,000, which is less than the population of California. Their nation is divided into administrative districts known as provinces, rather than states which, initially at least, freely associated their democratically elected (more or less, if one ignores that non-whites and women were not allowed to vote) governments to form the nation. At the lowest levels, it is roughly true to say that we have a democratic system, it is less true at the national level because of the issue of state sovereignty. But so what? You are making my argument. If your simple-minded thesis is that the government here is dominated by "whites," and yet we are still a "democracy" (i haven't the least notion of why you felt compelled to put that word in quote marks), then it is completely reasonable to suggest that a Shi'ite-dominated government in Iraq can be democratic, even though giving no special consideration to the Sunni Arabs or the Kurds. You badly need to work on the logic of what you post.

Quote:
Were we to elect a clansman . . .


Why would there be anything unusual about electing a Scotsman to the Presidency, so long as he were born here? Oh . . . maybe this lame-brained little excursion refers to a Klansman--a member of the Ku Klux Klan, no?

Quote:
. . . to the top office; I think the world would have something to say about it.


Leaving aside the idiotic suggestion that an avowed member of the Ku Klux Klan could ever get elected, and leaving aside the hilarious fantasy of "the world" having "something to say" about our electoral politics--just what precisely do you suggest the outcome might be? That we would be militarily threatened. Leaving aside the equally hilarious consideration of how "the world" would cross one or the other of two vast oceans, unhindered, with sufficient military force to effect "regime change"--upon precisely what basis to you suggest that it would be justified? International law? No, nothing in international law authorizes the invasion of a sovereign state in order to interfer in their internal political arrangements--despite the example of our own government's lawlessness. United Nations intervention? Do you suggest the rest of the world use United Nations authority, in a regularly pursued manner, against us, as the Shrub refused to do when it looked like not getting his way in Iraq?

For your edification, Article 2 of Chapter One of the United Nations charter reads, in full:

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
(emphasis has been added)

The above referenced Chapter VII reads, in full:

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


I thought it best to post that in full, as nothing could have been learned about the United Nations, domestic politics and a rush to war by observing the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad in action.

Not only do you have no case--you contradict yourself.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:12 am
Came across an interesting quote in an old article.

March 19, 2003

Quote:
After a swipe at the LibDems [Tony Blair] said that Saddam's claim that he had destroyed his weapons was "patently absurd". At this point he heard loud Tory applause but even louder Labour silence.


link
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:15 am
Setanta wrote:

...
emphasis added by ican711nm
Quote:
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Occum Bill posted a positive, very sensible and even-handed analysis of the real opportunity the Iraqi people have been given. Your gross and flagrant corruption of the true meaning of what Occum Bill posted in this forum renders all (except the UN Charter excerpt) you posted here worthless.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:38 am
The part you highlighted doesn't pertain to our situation, Ican, because we are not acting in self-defense any long; but offensive attacks.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:43 am
As no threat to the United States from Iraq had or has ever been established, that fact renders all that Ican't posted here worthless.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:46 am
Honestly, ican, you didn't read what you highlighted, correct?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:58 am
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/mathews_memo.320.240.mov

Video of British Author Phillipe Sands, who uncovered a memo detailing a conversation between Jack Straw and Colin Powell:

Quote:
SANDS: Well, there's now no shred of doubt and there's been no denial, you will have noticed, as to the contents of the memorandum that the decision was indeed taken in January before Colin Powell went.

In fact, one other aspect that I've described in my book, "Lawless World" that hasn't emerged so much in the New York Times memo is another memo which records a conversation between Colin Powell and his counterpart in the United Kingdom, Jack Straw, which makes it clear that in Colin Powell's eyes if there wasn't enough evidence for a second Security Council resolution, then there wasn't enough evidence to justify the U.S. going it alone.

So Colin Powell was spot on, but it seems he was overridden by a president and others in the administration who were absolutely committed to taking the United States to war, tragically in erroneous circumstances, irrespective of what the inspectors found.


Colin Powell: Not a member of PNAC. Not determined to go to war without evidence of WMD and UN approval. And not a part of the Administration any longer.

Cycloptichorn
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 11:05:26