9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 04:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Which freedoms?


Freedom from gov't intrusion into our lives - embodied by the 4th amendment, which none of you really seem to give a damn about.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
...

Article I
Section 8.
...

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
...

The Bill of Rights (1791)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Listening in on my calls to or from outside the USA during a war is not an unreasonable search and seizure.


There's no way to tell if the gov't is listening to domestic-domestic calls or domestic-foreign calls without an independent party reviewing the data - ie, the FISA court. Bush has been circumventing this since before 9/11; before we were in a time of war.

Cycloptichorn

OK! I STAND CORRECTED!
During a time of war, I think the federal government listening in on all my telephone calls is not an unreasonable search and seizure. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money. But what the hell, invidious collectivists in the Congress waste billions more taxpayer's money trying to reduce the difference between my income and Bill Gate's income.

Bush is incompetent! So was Clinton. So is Al Gore and John Kerry.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 04:46 pm
Quote:

OK! I STAND CORRECTED!
During a time of war, I think the federal government listening in on all my telephone calls is not an unreasonable search and seizure. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money. But what the hell, invidious collectivists in the Congress waste billions more taxpayer's money trying to reduce the difference between my income and Bill Gate's income.

Bush is incompetent! So was Clinton. So is Al Gore and John Kerry.


I disagree completely, and what more, so does the law.

Thus, I will not stop working to keep you and those who share your opinions from taking away my freedoms. What you propose is in contravention of the law; in America, the Rule of Law supersedes all other concerns.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 04:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okay, back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4P3P1P2JnY

Iraqis say 'no - a big, fat no' to permanent US bases in Iraq.

How well do you think that's going to go over with the Cheney crowd?

Cycloptichorn

I hope the Iraqis stick to that position, regardless of whether the Cheney crowd like it or not.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 04:49 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okay, back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4P3P1P2JnY

Iraqis say 'no - a big, fat no' to permanent US bases in Iraq.

How well do you think that's going to go over with the Cheney crowd?

Cycloptichorn

I hope the Iraqis stick to that position, regardless of whether the Cheney crowd like it or not.


Without a permanent military presence there, how can we ensure that AQ will not set up shop in the country once we leave?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 05:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

OK! I STAND CORRECTED!
During a time of war, I think the federal government listening in on all my telephone calls is not an unreasonable search and seizure. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money. But what the hell, invidious collectivists in the Congress waste billions more taxpayer's money trying to reduce the difference between my income and Bill Gate's income.

Bush is incompetent! So was Clinton. So is Al Gore and John Kerry.


I disagree completely, and what more, so does the law.

Thus, I will not stop working to keep you and those who share your opinions from taking away my freedoms. What you propose is in contravention of the law; in America, the Rule of Law supersedes all other concerns.

Cycloptichorn

No, the law, the "supreme Law of the Land," the Constitution as written and amended, disagrees with you. All that is required is for Congress and the President for the duration of the war, to agree to suspend habeas corpus for non-legal residents, and declare listening in on phone calls without warrants to not be unreasonable searches and seizures.



Your freedoms, and what is far more important the freedoms of the rest of us, are in far greater jeopardy if Congress and the President fail to agree on this.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 05:06 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

OK! I STAND CORRECTED!
During a time of war, I think the federal government listening in on all my telephone calls is not an unreasonable search and seizure. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money. But what the hell, invidious collectivists in the Congress waste billions more taxpayer's money trying to reduce the difference between my income and Bill Gate's income.

Bush is incompetent! So was Clinton. So is Al Gore and John Kerry.


I disagree completely, and what more, so does the law.

Thus, I will not stop working to keep you and those who share your opinions from taking away my freedoms. What you propose is in contravention of the law; in America, the Rule of Law supersedes all other concerns.

Cycloptichorn

No, the law, the "supreme Law of the Land," the Constitution as written and amended, disagrees with you. All that is required is for Congress and the President for the duration of the war, to agree to suspend habeas corpus for non-legal residents, and declare listening in on phone calls without warrants to not be unreasonable searches and seizures.


This would be perfectly legal and within the law. What more, Bush could get Congress to simply change the laws in question; or, Congress could call for a Constitutional Convention and change the Law itself.

None of this justifies the current law-breaking which is going on; the Rule of Law allows for amendments to the Law itself, but this process has not been followed. Even under your scenario, the Rule of Law reigns supreme in America.

Quote:

Your freedoms, and what is far more important the freedoms of the rest of us, are in far greater jeopardy if Congress and the President fail to agree on this.


Unsupported assertion based in some sort of fear-mongering. No terrorist is going to take away my freedoms; only people like you will attempt to do so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 05:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okay, back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4P3P1P2JnY

Iraqis say 'no - a big, fat no' to permanent US bases in Iraq.

How well do you think that's going to go over with the Cheney crowd?

Cycloptichorn

I hope the Iraqis stick to that position, regardless of whether the Cheney crowd like it or not.


Without a permanent military presence there, how can we ensure that AQ will not set up shop in the country once we leave?

Cycloptichorn
We should not leave until the Iraq government asks us to leave. They will not ask us to leave until they are convince they can secure their people against al-Qaeda and other such malignancies. Then the Iraqis themselves with their own permanent military presence there "can ensure that AQ will not for long set up shop in the country once we leave." Also, if the Iraqis subsequently need our help again, they can ask for it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

OK! I STAND CORRECTED!
During a time of war, I think the federal government listening in on all my telephone calls is not an unreasonable search and seizure. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money. But what the hell, invidious collectivists in the Congress waste billions more taxpayer's money trying to reduce the difference between my income and Bill Gate's income.

Bush is incompetent! So was Clinton. So is Al Gore and John Kerry.


I disagree completely, and what more, so does the law.

Thus, I will not stop working to keep you and those who share your opinions from taking away my freedoms. What you propose is in contravention of the law; in America, the Rule of Law supersedes all other concerns.

Cycloptichorn

No, the law, the "supreme Law of the Land," the Constitution as written and amended, disagrees with you. All that is required is for Congress and the President for the duration of the war, to agree to suspend habeas corpus for non-legal residents, and declare listening in on phone calls without warrants to not be unreasonable searches and seizures.


This would be perfectly legal and within the law. What more, Bush could get Congress to simply change the laws in question; or, Congress could call for a Constitutional Convention and change the Law itself.

None of this justifies the current law-breaking which is going on; the Rule of Law allows for amendments to the Law itself, but this process has not been followed. Even under your scenario, the Rule of Law reigns supreme in America.

Quote:

Your freedoms, and what is far more important the freedoms of the rest of us, are in far greater jeopardy if Congress and the President fail to agree on this.


Unsupported assertion based in some sort of fear-mongering. No terrorist is going to take away my freedoms; only people like you will attempt to do so.

Cycloptichorn
It's not an unsupported assertion based on some sort of fear-mongering. That allegation of yours is an unsupported assertion based on some sort of inability to face reality. People who think like you and succeed in handicapping the government's terrorist defenses, will be among the first to criticize the government for not detecting and stopping terrorist attacks before they occur.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:21 pm
Quote:
People who think like you and succeed in handicapping the government's terrorist defenses, will be among the first to criticize the government for not detecting and stopping terrorist attacks before they occur.


This is an unsupported assertion on your part.

On my part, I'll say this - I'd rather die then give up my freedoms, b/c of some terrorists.

When did the Republican party become so full of weaklings and cowards?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:38 pm
Iraqi Nationalists Gaining Power Despite U.S. Efforts
By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation
Posted on October 22, 2007, Printed on October 22, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/65797/

Perversely, and entirely unintentionally, recent US-caused events in Iraq have sparked the one thing capable of both forcing an end to the American occupation and uniting the people of Iraq around a common purpose: Iraqi nationalism. Last seen, briefly, during the summer, when the Iraqi soccer team's victory brought its countrymen out in the streets in all shades of ethnic and sectarian variety, nationalism in Iraq has been revived recently as a result of three simultaneous US actions.

Those events are, first, the misguided effort, led by Senator Joe Biden, to partition Iraq into three mini-states, which passed the Senate 75 to 23 September 26; second, the September 16 killing of seventeen Iraqis by trigger-happy Blackwater security forces in a traffic-clogged Baghdad square; and third, the continuing American pressure to force the partial privatization of Iraq's oil, part of which, in Kurdistan, was illegally gobbled up in September by Ray Hunt of Hunt Oil, one of George W. Bush's Texas chums. Any one of these events would have been guaranteed to spark outrage among most Iraqis, but taken together they have galvanized nationalism to a degree unprecedented since the 2003 invasion. All three have been seized on as leverage by Iraqi political forces that oppose the fifty-four-month occupation of Iraq.

The Biden resolution sparked near-apoplectic outrage among vast swaths of Iraqis. The Cabinet declared, "The Iraqi government categorically rejects the resolution." The Iraqi Parliament voted to condemn it. "Iraq is not a US property," said a spokesman for the Sunni-led National Dialogue Front. The Association of Muslim Scholars, which calls itself the political arm of the Iraqi armed resistance, stated, "The Senate's adoption of [the] resolutionÂ…is not shocking, because [partitioning the country] was one of the objectives behind the invasion of Iraq." Indeed, from Richard Perle to David Wurmser, who recently resigned as Vice President Cheney's chief Middle East adviser, the neoconservatives who pushed for the war eagerly embraced the notion of redrawing the map of the region, and it didn't stop at Iraq's borders.

Meanwhile, the Blackwater massacre brought into sharp focus what, for Iraqis, has been one of the ugliest parts of the occupation: the arrogant behavior of the US diplomatic and military convoys in the streets of the capital. At best, these cowboy convoys are a painful reminder that the country is occupied, as they set up arbitrary roadblocks, speed through oncoming traffic in the wrong lanes and routinely smash through stopped or parked vehicles. At worst, they engage in criminal assaults against civilians. The most recent Blackwater incident crystallized a long-simmering resentment that has touched off a showdown between the Iraqi government and US authorities. Even subservient Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki declared that Blackwater is "unfit to stay in Iraq."

The Hunt Oil deal with the Kurds, one of several pending oil contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, may have put the last nail in the coffin of the US effort to force Iraq to rewrite its oil laws. Like the Biden resolution and the Blackwater shooting, the Hunt deal unleashed pent-up anger among Iraqi Arab leaders, who called the deal illegal, since under current Iraqi law only the central government in Baghdad, not the Kurds, can approve oil deals. The nationalization of Iraq's oil in 1972 by Saddam Hussein, after a decades-long struggle between Iraq and the Anglo-American oil cartel, was a landmark event, the first major oil nationalization in the region since the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh took over the British oil interests there and, for his efforts, was toppled in 1953 by a CIA-engineered coup inspired by that cartel. In Arab Iraq, if not in Kurdistan, the national oil industry is sacrosanct. If the United States intended to confirm Iraqis' belief that the invasion was about grabbing their country's oil, the US effort to open up the industry to foreign investors is perfectly designed to do so.

All of this is roiling Iraqi politics. Across the political spectrum, on both the Sunni and Shiite sides of the divide, a nationalist bloc is emerging to challenge the alliance of Kurdish and Shiite separatists that has governed Iraq for three years under American tutelage. To be sure, such a coalition faces enormous obstacles that could stifle it in the cradle. First, it would have to overcome the staunch opposition of US occupation forces, still aligned in support of the Maliki government and the Shiite-Kurdish alliance that underpins it. Second, thanks to four years of US support, that alliance controls the Iraqi armed forces, the Iraqi police, the Interior Ministry and several powerful private armies--including the Badr Organization and the Kurdish pesh merga--which will oppose the new coalition. And the leaders who are trying to build cross-sectarian ties will have to overcome the entrenched Sunni-Shiite hatreds.

Still, the emerging nationalist bloc could get enough votes in Parliament to topple Maliki's shaky coalition. Its components include two major Shiite factions, Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc and the Fadhila (Virtue) Party, which together hold forty-seven seats in Parliament; the entire Sunni bloc, led by the Iraqi Accord and the National Dialogue Front, which have fifty-five seats; and the secular bloc led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, which controls twenty-five seats. In addition, say well-placed Iraqi sources, former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Maliki rival in the ruling Islamic Dawa Party, has upward of twenty Shiite deputies in his camp, and Jaafari is negotiating to be part of the new alliance. The addition of Jaafari's bloc would give the alliance at least 147 votes, a clear majority in the 275-member assembly. On September 26 Tariq al-Hashimi, the Sunni vice president, announced the formation of a National Pact project intended to unify the emerging bloc, and he promptly traveled to Najaf to get Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's blessing for the effort. Hashimi's twenty-five-point plan, similar to one launched earlier by Allawi, calls for equality for all Iraqis, an end to sectarian killing, opposition to foreign interference in Iraq, support for the legitimate right of armed resistance and a declaration (aimed at Al Qaeda) that "terror is not considered resistance."

Outside parliamentary politics, there is much more happening. On the Sunni side, the emergence of the Awakening, a bloc of Sunni tribal leaders, has brought a large portion of the former armed resistance into Iraqi politics, and they are nearly all fierce nationalists. At the same time, a group of twenty-two Iraqi resistance groups announced in early October that they had formed a coalition led by a former top Baath Party official from the Saddam era, Izzat al-Douri, widely recognized as the leader of the resistance. Allawi, the former prime minister and a secular Shiite, declared that he had opened political talks with Douri's resistance faction. For the first time since 2003, both major parts of the resistance--the tribal militias and the former Baathists and ex-military officers--are directly engaged in politics in the new Iraq. The Douri faction declared its willingness to negotiate a cease-fire with the United States, on the condition that Washington declare its timetable for leaving Iraq.

On the Shiite side, meanwhile, the Sadr faction and Fadhila have emerged as the dominant powers in eastern Baghdad and south Iraq, eclipsing the supremacy of the Badr Organization, the militia of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), backed by both Iran and the United States (a strange irony, given that SIIC, of all the Shiite factions, is closest to Iran). Sadr and Fadhila have pulled out of the United Iraqi Alliance, the ruling Shiite coalition. If elections were held today, Sadr and Fadhila would likely sweep the Shiite-dominated parts of Iraq, reducing SIIC and Dawa to mini-parties. Sadr has sent envoys to Sunni Arab countries, proposed a joint Sunni-Shiite effort to rebuild the Samarra mosque damaged by Al Qaeda bombers, taken part in a Saudi-backed effort in Mecca to create a Sunni-Shiite clerical dialogue in Iraq and quietly engaged in talks with Sunni and secular factions in Baghdad. Not only that, in late August Sadr declared a unilateral six-month truce, ordering his forces to stand down, and, according to the Los Angeles Times, he is secretly involved in talks with US military officials. It may be too much to hope for, but just as the United States finally decided to join the Sunni tribal resistance forces rather than fight them, it's possible that farsighted US officials would be willing to work with Sadr rather than confront him, too.

If so, the United States will have potential partners in both the Sunni and Shiite parts of Iraq who can assume control of Iraq when the United States leaves and who, so far at least, seem more than willing to talk to each other about an arrangement to halt sectarian killing and ethnic cleansing. The problem is, both America's newfound Sunni allies and the powerful Sadr-Fadhila bloc are united most of all by their opposition to the US occupation. (Both the Sunni bloc and Sadr are also united by their opposition to Al Qaeda and to Iran's heavy-handed influence in the country.) Earlier this year, they united in Parliament on two nationalist bills: the first called for the United States to set a timetable for leaving Iraq, and the second demanded that the Iraqi government submit for parliamentary debate any plan to extend the United Nations mandate for the US occupation beyond December, when it expires.

The Catch-22 of the American occupation is this: Iraqi nationalism is the only political force capable of uniting Sunni and Shiite Arabs and thus putting an end to the sectarian civil war, but for the past four years the United States has systematically worked to suppress nationalism. Instead, beginning with Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003, the United States deliberately apportioned political posts using an ethnic- and sectarian-based formula. Since then, US occupation authorities have favored separatists, such as SIIC, which wants a separate Shiite enclave in the south, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which are angling for an independent state in Iraq's north. It's no mystery why: nationalists would be the least willing to accommodate the preferred American goal of an Iraq that is at once docile, neutral in the Arab-Israeli conflict, tolerant of a long-term US presence, willing to serve as a base for US military operations in the region and ready to hand over their oil wealth to Western investors.

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
People who think like you and succeed in handicapping the government's terrorist defenses, will be among the first to criticize the government for not detecting and stopping terrorist attacks before they occur.


This is an unsupported assertion on your part.

On my part, I'll say this - I'd rather die then give up my freedoms, b/c of some terrorists.

When did the Republican party become so full of weaklings and cowards?

Cycloptichorn

This is an unsupported assertion on your part.

When you die, you will give up your freedoms, whether you die of natural causes, because some terrorists kill you, or because you fail to see the forest for the trees.

When did the Democratic party become so full of weaklings and cowards who are terrified by reality?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:42 pm
Army to keep forced re-enlistments
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:47 pm
xingu wrote:
Iraqi Nationalists Gaining Power Despite U.S. Efforts
By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation
Posted on October 22, 2007, Printed on October 22, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/65797/

...

If so, the United States will have potential partners in both the Sunni and Shiite parts of Iraq who can assume control of Iraq when the United States leaves and who, so far at least, seem more than willing to talk to each other about an arrangement to halt sectarian killing and ethnic cleansing. The problem is, both America's newfound Sunni allies and the powerful Sadr-Fadhila bloc are united most of all by their opposition to the US occupation. (Both the Sunni bloc and Sadr are also united by their opposition to Al Qaeda and to Iran's heavy-handed influence in the country.) Earlier this year, they united in Parliament on two nationalist bills: the first called for the United States to set a timetable for leaving Iraq, and the second demanded that the Iraqi government submit for parliamentary debate any plan to extend the United Nations mandate for the US occupation beyond December, when it expires.

...

More progress!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:49 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
People who think like you and succeed in handicapping the government's terrorist defenses, will be among the first to criticize the government for not detecting and stopping terrorist attacks before they occur.


This is an unsupported assertion on your part.

On my part, I'll say this - I'd rather die then give up my freedoms, b/c of some terrorists.

When did the Republican party become so full of weaklings and cowards?

Cycloptichorn

This is an unsupported assertion on your part.

When you die, you will give up your freedoms, whether you die of natural causes, because some terrorists kill you, or because you fail to see the forest for the trees.

When did the Democratic party become so full of weaklings and cowards who are terrified by reality?


One does not give up their freedoms when they die.

I've lost patience for your particular brand of rhetorical foolishness for the evening.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:52 pm
US Army Lures Foreigners with Promise of Citizenship
By Cordula Meyer in Washington

More than 30,000 foreign troops are enlisted in the US Army, many of them serving in Iraq. Their reward for risking their lives for their adopted country is US citizenship.

When Anna Maria Clarke, 26, was a teenager living in the western German city of Mannheim, she already had a weakness for smart uniforms, particularly on American soldiers, and for war movies like "Full Metal Jacket." It was an attraction that Clarke, a German citizen, felt early on and still feels today.

The parents of 25-year-old Julieta Ortiz immigrated to the United States from Mexico City, dirt-poor but ambitious. They worked hard picking strawberries in California, determined that their daughter would have a better life. Four years ago, Julieta suddenly found a way to that better life -- a difficult path, but one that would lift her out of the poverty of her childhood.

Jose Figueira, 31, spent much of his life listening to his father proudly recount his experiences as a soldier in the Portuguese army. Figueira, who grew up in Massachusetts, yearned to have something he could be just as proud of. "I wanted to prove that I'm a good citizen, that I'm willing to stand up for everything I love about this country."

They may have different reasons for joining the US Armed Forces, but all three are now among the more than 30,000 foreign soldiers fighting for America -- not as Americans, but as a Mexican, a Portuguese and even a German. Without its foreign soldiers, the United States would have trouble coming up with enough troops to meet the demand in Iraq. The foreigners, for their part, take the dangerous job mainly for its biggest reward: US citizenship.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has granted US citizenship to 32,500 foreign soldiers. In July 2002, US President George W. Bush issued an executive order to expand existing legislation to offer a fast track to citizenship to foreigners who agree to fight for the US Armed Forces. About 8,000 non-Americans have joined the US military every year since then.

The foreigners already represent 5 percent of all recruits. They even make up the majority of soldiers from some New York and Los Angeles neighborhoods. Four years and 3,800 US deaths after the beginning of the Iraq campaign, fewer and fewer American citizens are willing to fight in a war opposed by a majority of the US population. But despite the Iraq war's lack of popularity, US generals are demanding 180,000 new recruits a year.

The Pentagon already spends $3.2 billion a year on recruitment, even sending its recruiters to high schools to persuade 17-year-olds still a year away from graduation to enlist.

The US military learned long ago that foreign recruits are often the most dedicated Americans. Anna Maria from Mannheim, looking girlish with her red ponytail, had always dreamed about the US military. She was attracted to the American soldiers living in Germany, who seemed so relaxed about life. When she fell in love, it was always with an American GI. Her soft spot earned her the nickname "Ami-Anna" ("Yankee Anna"). Of course, she married a GI. She began secretly watching her husband's fellow soldiers doing their push-ups and sit-ups in the morning. Then she started exercising, lost 25 kilograms (55 pounds), passed the admission test and survived US Army boot camp in Texas.

Over 100 Germans
Now Airman First Class Clarke works in the human resources department at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. But the reality of the war shows up on her desk sometimes. Part of Clarke's job is to make sure that the bodies of soldiers killed in Iraq make it home as complete as possible.

Of course, Clarke expects to be sent to Iraq herself at any time. She says that she would even have enlisted without the promise of her new US citizenship, but it's important to her nonetheless. "After all," she says, "I could be killed for this country. It's nice to know that it's actually my country." There are currently 128 Germans serving in the US military -- more than from any other European country except Great Britain.

Most foreign recruits come from Latin America and the Caribbean. Latino rights groups in the United States, fearful that immigrants are being used as cannon fodder, object to the somewhat shady practice of offering citizenship in return for military service. But it happens to be a fact of life "that immigrants always have the more difficult jobs," says military expert Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He is more concerned about the fact that many US citizens are already serving their third tours of duty at the front. Increased recruitment of foreigners, says O'Hanlon, could help lighten the burden.

O'Hanlon has even proposed recruiting potential new citizens for military service in selected countries, like the Philippines or Uganda, a proposal the Pentagon is considering.

Military recruiters have been particularly successful in immigrant communities. "Immigrants want to prove to American society that they are especially patriotic," says Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War, a liberal anti-war organization. "The recruitment officers take advantage of this and promise citizenship in return." Patriotism was a strong motivator for Jose Figueira to join the US military. "I wanted to prove that the Americans could trust me," he says. "I wanted to prove that I belong here."

Sergeant Figueira, a member of the National Guard, is no military buff. He's realized, after serving in Iraq, that the reality of war is more than he expected. He talks about Baghdad, about roadside bombs and snipers. He also talks about the many hours he spent under enemy fire repairing the vehicles in his convoy after a bomb attack. He saw soldiers being killed, and the tears come to his eyes when he talks about the experience. Nevertheless, he says, he would return to Iraq at any time.

It's people like Figueira who demonstrate that immigrants "are indispensable for the military," says Margaret Stock, a lawyer and lecturer at the legendary US Military Academy at West Point. "They are more successful and they're less likely to give up," she adds. Besides, immigrants are a good investment for the military. "You get more bang for your buck," says Stock.

It is for these reasons that the military is now deliberately targeting immigrants for recruitment, especially those who speak Arabic or Farsi -- but also Latinos, the largest immigrant group in the United States. Corporal Julieta Ortiz, Mexican by birth, joined the Marines "because I wanted to make something out of myself and because citizenship means a lot to me." Being a US citizen helps her advance in her career, because, as she says, "I couldn't become an officer" as a foreigner in the US military. She is now an architecture student and wants to work for the government in the future. She glosses over the potential risks of serving in Iraq. "It's worth it to me," says Ortiz.

"People with no prospects see the military as a way out of poverty," says Jorge Mariscal, a professor of Latino Studies at the University of California, San Diego. The uniform means money -- money for college and money to pay bills. "Immigrants are taken advantage of," says Bill Galvin, who is against the war and advises soldiers in Washington who want to get out of the military before their contracts are up. "Those who have no other options are the most likely to end up in combat."

A US Flag, and a Certificate of Citizenship
One of them was Juan Alcantara, 22, the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic who grew up in New York's Washington Heights neighborhood.

Alcantara survived his first year in Iraq, but then the recent troop surge began and, under an executive order issued by President Bush, Corporal Alcantara was told he would be kept on in Iraq for another six months. He had been scheduled to return home on June 28. His girlfriend gave birth to their daughter on June 29. On Aug. 6, a bomb exploded while Alcantara was searching a house in the town of Baqubah, north of Baghdad. Alcantara was killed in the blast.

His mother, Maria, now sits in her apartment in Washington Heights, wiping the tears from her eyes. She once told her son that the three most important things in life are: "God, family and your country."

She says that the army promised Juan "up to $50,000 for college, plus a $20,000 bonus, his choice of any of 200 jobs and a full-time position." He filled out the application on the plastic-covered couch in her living room. The mother says that she wept the first time her son came home in his new dress uniform. "He was so elegant, so handsome."

She prayed when he was ordered to go to Iraq. Was Corporal Juan Alcantara really convinced that he was defending his country? The mother nods. She truly wants to believe all the things the officers told her during the memorial service and at the funeral, when they handed her a US flag, the Purple Heart, an award for wounded soldiers -- and Juan's certificate of citizenship. Everyone at the ceremony assured her that her son was a hero.
Juan Alcantara is the 103rd foreign soldier to become a US citizen posthumously -- after dying in the Iraq war. His mother keeps the framed certificate and the letters of condolence in a blue plastic bag.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,512384,00.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:56 pm
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
Iraqi Nationalists Gaining Power Despite U.S. Efforts
By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation
Posted on October 22, 2007, Printed on October 22, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/65797/

...

If so, the United States will have potential partners in both the Sunni and Shiite parts of Iraq who can assume control of Iraq when the United States leaves and who, so far at least, seem more than willing to talk to each other about an arrangement to halt sectarian killing and ethnic cleansing. The problem is, both America's newfound Sunni allies and the powerful Sadr-Fadhila bloc are united most of all by their opposition to the US occupation. (Both the Sunni bloc and Sadr are also united by their opposition to Al Qaeda and to Iran's heavy-handed influence in the country.) Earlier this year, they united in Parliament on two nationalist bills: the first called for the United States to set a timetable for leaving Iraq, and the second demanded that the Iraqi government submit for parliamentary debate any plan to extend the United Nations mandate for the US occupation beyond December, when it expires.

...

More progress!


America is against the nationalist. Nationalist want us out of the country. Divide and conquer is our motto.

Quote:
The Catch-22 of the American occupation is this: Iraqi nationalism is the only political force capable of uniting Sunni and Shiite Arabs and thus putting an end to the sectarian civil war, but for the past four years the United States has systematically worked to suppress nationalism. Instead, beginning with Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003, the United States deliberately apportioned political posts using an ethnic- and sectarian-based formula. Since then, US occupation authorities have favored separatists, such as SIIC, which wants a separate Shiite enclave in the south, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which are angling for an independent state in Iraq's north. It's no mystery why: nationalists would be the least willing to accommodate the preferred American goal of an Iraq that is at once docile, neutral in the Arab-Israeli conflict, tolerant of a long-term US presence, willing to serve as a base for US military operations in the region and ready to hand over their oil wealth to Western investors.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 07:13 pm
Another thing to remember ican is we were, and still are, against Sadr. He is considered an enemy because he is a nationalist.

Quote:
Fierce clashes broke out between Shiite militants and Iraqi forces in the Shiite holy city of Karbala late on Sunday, killing six fighters and a soldier, medics and police said.

The fighting erupted when gunmen from the Mahdi Army, the militia controlled by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, ambushed an Iraqi police patrol, a police officer from Karbala told AFP on condition of anonymity.

He said the patrol was struck by a roadside bomb and later attacked by small arms fire.

The clashes erupted hours after the US military declared it had killed 49 "criminals" in Baghdad's Sadr City, the bastion of the Mahdi Army.

A medic at the city's Al-Hussein Hospital said the dead in Karbala included six militants and an Iraqi soldier.

He said the dead included a local Mahdi Army commander Mohammed Sharia whose brother Ali Sharia was arrested two months ago by the US military.

"The clashes started at 8 pm and continued until late in the night. The firefight took place in three western neighbourhoods of the city," the medic added.

The police officer said three people from a family were wounded when their house was hit by a mortar fired by the militants during the clashes.

Karbala was also the site of bloody firefight on August 28 when 52 people were killed as gunmen clashed with Iraqi police near the Imam Hussein shrine.

Those clashes erupted at a time when hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims flooded the streets of Karbala to mark the birth anniversary of an eighth century imam.

The Mahdi Army was widely blamed for the bloodshed and Sadr later ordered a six-month suspension of the militia's activities.

The US military however claims that many leaders of the Mahdi Army are not observing Sadr's ceasefire call and are still resorting to violence.

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071022100614.xw8k0jtf&cat=null
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 06:44 am
Quote:
Another thing to remember ican is we were, and still are, against Sadr. He is considered an enemy because he is a nationalist.


When Iran builds that new power plant in Sadr City he'll get the credit..then the recruitment wil skyrocket. This is how factions like Hezbollah gain power and allegiance...by providing services to the poor...and of course Iran knows this all too well.

Bushco outfoxed again.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 09:00 am
Here's the latest on Bush's "support our troops" rhetoric.

The national guard of Minnesota are being denied benefits based on our governments manipulation of the time served in Iraq. They earn benefits only if they serve 730 days in a war zone, but our defense department cuts them short at 729 days of service.

If this doesn't turn your stomach, you must still be a Bush supporter.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 09:14 am
Here's the story. We'll have to wait and see what the Bush administration will do about this. There is no way they can deny these troops their benefits and tell America they support our troops. In the end they will get their benefits.

National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War
Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 10/3/2007 2:39:29 PM
Updated: 10/3/2007 5:32:02 PM

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.

Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."

The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.

Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.

Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741
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 0.37 seconds on 07/28/2025 at 01:02:45