THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Shorter Ican:

Quote:
I'll post any number of documents which are not germane to the conversation, however many it takes, until people stop questioning my point of view.

Cycloptichorn

The conversation is about whether or not the threat to America of the Taliban regime and the Saddam regime differed in significant magnitude, such as to warrant invading Afghanistan to remove the al-Qaeda there, but not invading Iraq to remove the al-Qaeda there.

I have provided a preponderance of evidence to show that there was not a significant difference between the threat to America of the Taliban regime and the threat to America of the Saddam regime. Both threats were trivial. However what was significant was the threat to America of the al-Qaeda sanctuaries in both countries. These sanctuaries warranted our invasion of both countries.

Your responses on the otherhand appear to emphasize a subject not germane to this conversation. It appears that you think the subject of ican is germane to this conversation. The subject of ican is not germane to this conversation. However, if you were to create a thread whose subject was ican, I would be delighted to read, but not participate in, any of its post exchanges.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I parefer to rely on the UN Secretary General than ican.

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

ican will never figure out why.

I prefer to rely on the UN Charter rather than the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Surely you can figure out why you also should rely on the UN Charter rather than the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Quote:

UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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-defense 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.

Thanks, mysteryman, for bringing this cicerone imposter post to my attention.

0 Replies

Petition holds US fully responsible for Iraq crisis
Iraqi Signatories demand speedy withdrawal of coalition forces from country

Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 10, 2007

BEIRUT: A number of Iraqi politicians, academics and intellectuals signed on Friday a petition that calls for a speedy US withdrawal from Iraq and an end to the current political process installed by "the occupation." In a joint communique, the signatories outlined a 20-point initiative that enshrines "comprehensive and independent programs for the elaboration of a realistic constitution" for a two-year transitional period that will follow the occupation.

The proposal also includes elaborate plans for "the reconstruction of Iraq, and for the fields of oil, the military, the Kurdish situation, compensations and the country's debt, etc."

The petition was announced by Khaireddine Haseeb, director general of the Center for Arab Unity Studies, during a meeting at The Bristol Hotel in Beirut.

"The situation in our country is fast deteriorating, especially since the occupation in April 2003," the statement said. "Sectarianism is rife, militias proliferate and bribery, corruption and organized crime are rampant. Violence fills the streets and the state lost its aura as its institutions and services unravelled.

"We place the responsibility for the current situation in Iraq, squarely on the shoulders of the US. The latter led a so-called international coalition against our country, under false pretenses, such as weapons of mass destruction and links to international terror, and it is therefore responsible, under international law, for the current situation in Iraq."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=80322

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I parefer to rely on the UN Secretary General than ican.

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

ican will never figure out why.

I prefer to rely on the UN Charter rather than the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Surely you can figure out why you also should rely on the UN Charter rather than the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Quote:
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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-defense 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.

Thanks, mysteryman, for bringing this cicerone imposter post to my attention.

You quoted the wrong passage; that one talks about self-defense, whereas we are currently on the Offensive.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

MY OPINION

Desertion by America of the Iraqi people before they are able to adequately protect themselves would be a moral outrage, an evil and thoughtless disregard for the legitimate obligations we have to the Iraqi people.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, 2006, the population of Iraq in 2006 was 28.513 million. Slightly less than half of them were too young to vote in the Iraqi January 2006 elections. That left about 14 million potential voters for that election. Despite all the threats by al-Qaeda et al that Iraqis who voted would be murdered, about 12 million Iraqis, or about 85%, defied the threats and voted. The Iraqis definitely want a democracy that can adequately protect their liberty.

Abandoning to a probable ruthless tyranny composed of less than 100 thousand mass murderers of non-murderers, a people who desire democracy to this degree, would be unconscionable, rotten, and irresponsible. Furthermore, we would ultimately be causing many more Americans to also be put in harm's way than are in harm's way now.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
You quoted the wrong passage; that one talks about self-defense, whereas we are currently on the Offensive.

Cycloptichorn

Malarkey! Gad that's dumb! We are endeavoring to defend the Iraqi people and ultimately ourselves.

When one goes on the offensive in the process of defending oneself (e.g., after 12/7/1941), one is not operating contrary to:

Quote:

UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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-defense 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.

Cyclo, you did it again:
(11) You quoted the wrong passage; that one talks about self-defense, whereas we are currently on the Offensive.

Seems to me you are getting desperate. You appear to be desperately defending your religion.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
You quoted the wrong passage; that one talks about self-defense, whereas we are currently on the Offensive.

Cycloptichorn

Malarkey! Gad that's dumb! We are endeavoring to defend the Iraqi people and ultimately ourselves.

When one goes on the offensive in the process of defending oneself (e.g., after 12/7/1941), one is not operating contrary to:

Quote:
UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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-defense 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.

Cyclo, you did it again:
(11) You quoted the wrong passage; that one talks about self-defense, whereas we are currently on the Offensive.

Seems to me you are getting desperate. You appear to be desperately defending your religion.

There is no such thing as going on the offensive in order to defend oneself. You are re-defining what the terms mean, especially in a legal sense.

Every tyrant throughout history claimed his offensive actions were in fact defensive, against a nebulous external threat. Your position is little different.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
There is no such thing as going on the offensive in order to defend oneself. You are re-defining what the terms mean, especially in a legal sense.

Every tyrant throughout history claimed his offensive actions were in fact defensive, against a nebulous external threat. Your position is little different.

Cycloptichorn

(12) There is no such thing as going on the offensive in order to defend oneself. Shocked

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
There is no such thing as going on the offensive in order to defend oneself. You are re-defining what the terms mean, especially in a legal sense.

Every tyrant throughout history claimed his offensive actions were in fact defensive, against a nebulous external threat. Your position is little different.

Cycloptichorn

(12) There is no such thing as going on the offensive in order to defend oneself.

It matters little to me if you wish to catalog my statements for easy referral to later in life, Ican. Your disparagement is meaningless, as you've proven yourself to be divorced from logic on more than one occasion.

I predict that over the next year, my fortunes and those of my party will Wax, while your fortunes and those of your party will wane. You will be proven more and more wrong on the Iraq issue as things get worse. This is a safe bet as it merely continues pre-existing trends which show no sign of reversal whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blueflame, Good article. Especially like the heading "Petition holds US fully responsible for Iraq crisis Iraqi Signatories demand speedy withdrawal of coalition forces from country"

People like ican refuses to see the obvious crisis Bush and his criminals created in Iraq. They think prolonging this illegal war will bring about some kind of democracy to the Middle East. Little do they know about Iraq's history or the four year plus occupation that has only succeeded in killing and maiming more of our soldiers and Iraqis. They want more of the same.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Petition holds US fully responsible for Iraq crisis
Iraqi Signatories demand speedy withdrawal of coalition forces from country

Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 10, 2007

BEIRUT: A number of Iraqi politicians, academics and intellectuals signed on Friday a petition that calls for a speedy US withdrawal from Iraq and an end to the current political process installed by "the occupation." In a joint communique, the signatories outlined a 20-point initiative that enshrines "comprehensive and independent programs for the elaboration of a realistic constitution" for a two-year transitional period that will follow the occupation.

The proposal also includes elaborate plans for "the reconstruction of Iraq, and for the fields of oil, the military, the Kurdish situation, compensations and the country's debt, etc."

...

I assume:
(1) The petitioners were not threatened with death if they refused to sign this petition;
(2) The petitioners are not themselves members of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

If my assumptions are correct, I would be ecstatic if the petitioners convinced their government to ask the US to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. I would infer that meant they felt capable of defending themselves without our help.

I am convinced that as soon as the Iraqi government asks the US to leave, the US will proceed to pack up and leave.

Khaireddine Haseeb, go for it!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I predict that over the next year, my fortunes and those of my party will Wax, while your fortunes and those of your party will wane. You will be proven more and more wrong on the Iraq issue as things get worse. This is a safe bet as it merely continues pre-existing trends which show no sign of reversal whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn

You may be correct. If you are, you have far more to personally lose than I do.

On the otherhand, you may be incorrect. If you are, all you have to personally lose is face and all I have to gain is more hours away from this computer terminal.

"Be careful what you wish for."

0 Replies

U.S. Soldiers Accused of Shooting Civilians in Sadr City

Quote:

Ican, it seems to me that we are in just as much danger from AQ now as we would be if we were not in Iraq. There are AQ cells and other terrorist groups all over the globe, not just in Iraq. Most of those we are fighting in Iraq now are not global terrorist such as Bin Laden, but Iraqi insurgents who were not even called AQ until after the invasion. If we left, they would not have a reason to follow after us as they are only interested in their own country.

As for as Iraqis killing each other goes, it seems to me we really have no lasting affect. The Shiites militias are lying low but Sunni insurgents are going as strong as ever. As soon as the security sweeps lighten up, the militias will start up again if the Sunni insurgents are not brought to heel. In which case, I would not blame the Shiite militias for only protecting their own people from being blown to smithereens from the Sunni insurgents. I don't see either side giving in and I imagine it is only going to spread to the rest of the surrounding countries, with or without us.

I guess, even though we are pretty much useless, we can't really leave with things as they are.

0 Replies

U.S. and Iran hold rare direct talks

Quote:

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iranian envoys spoke directly about Iraq's perilous security situation on Saturday in rare one-on-one talks that could help ease their nearly 28-year diplomatic freeze.

18 killed in Baghdad suicide bombing

Quote:

A suicide car bomb struck Baghdad's Shiite militia stronghold Saturday, killing at least 18 people as international envoys met in the Iraqi capital to talk about stabilizing the violence-shattered country.

The blast hit an Iraqi patrol in Sadr City at midday, scattering burning debris across a small bridge, witnesses said.

0 Replies

We can all hope the situation in Iraq will improve, but it's still a long shot IMHO.

From the NYT:

0 Replies

reuter's news agency reports :

Quote:

With an estimated 2 million Iraqis now in nearby countries and another 1.9 million internally displaced, UNHCR is stepping up its work and its support for the uprooted as well as the host countries that have assumed such an enormous burden. Syria has an estimated 1 million Iraqis and Jordan an estimated 750,000. Lebanon has an estimated 40,000 Iraqis.

similarly "christian today" reports :

Quote:

The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) reports as many as 50,000 people are fleeing Iraq a month.

Between 500,000 and 700,000 Iraqi refugees are in Jordan and 700,000 to 1 million in Syria. Others have fled to Egypt and Lebanon.

those leaving iraq are the educated and well to do citizens . the nation is being denuded of the very citizens needed to build a new and stable society . we can't expect the fanatics and those poor iraqis that can't read or write to build a new country .
imo we are past the point of "no return" .
recently several iraqi newcomers to canada were interviewed - doctors , scientists , business-people , they showed little interest of ever wanting to return to iraq .
so who is going to build the "new society" ?
hbg

IRAQIS FLEEING THEIR COUNTRY DAILY

"CHRISTIAN TODAY" REPORTS

0 Replies

U.S., Iran trade barbs in direct talks

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iranian envoys spoke directly with each other Saturday about Iraq's security, trading harsh words and blaming each other for this country's crisis at a one-day international conference that could ease their 27-year diplomatic freeze.

0 Replies

ican comments

revel wrote:

...
Ican, it seems to me that we are in just as much danger from AQ now as we would be if we were not in Iraq. There are AQ cells and other terrorist groups all over the globe, not just in Iraq. Most of those we are fighting in Iraq now are not global terrorist such as Bin Laden, but Iraqi insurgents who were not even called AQ until after the invasion. If we left, they would not have a reason to follow after us as they are only interested in their own country.

Yes, I agree that AQ is a global confederation. It is a global confederation of suicidal mass murderers of non-murderers. One of its affiliates gained sanctuary in Afghanistan in May 1996, more than five years before we invaded Afganistan. What that affiliate did after that before we invaded Afganistan is well known. Another of its affiliates gained sanctuary in Iraq in December 2001, more than one year before we invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, what that affiliate did after that before we invaded Iraq is not well known, but horrible all the same.

I disagree with your statement:

Quote:
Most of those we are fighting in Iraq now are not global terrorist such as Bin Laden, but Iraqi insurgents who were not even called AQ until after the invasion.

I have posted here a preponderance of evidence that most of those we are fighting in Iraq were and are members of the AQ global confederation. What the news media called them before and after our invasion of Iraq doesn't change what they actually were before and after our invasion of Iraq.

As for as Iraqis killing each other goes, it seems to me we really have no lasting affect. The Shiites militias are lying low but Sunni insurgents are going as strong as ever. As soon as the security sweeps lighten up, the militias will start up again if the Sunni insurgents are not brought to heel. In which case, I would not blame the Shiite militias for only protecting their own people from being blown to smithereens from the Sunni insurgents. I don't see either side giving in and I imagine it is only going to spread to the rest of the surrounding countries, with or without us.

You may be right .... You may be wrong. I say you will certainly be right if America assumes you are right.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, 2006, the population of Iraq in 2006 was 28.513 million. Slightly less than half of them were too young to vote in the Iraqi January 2006 elections. That left about 14 million potential voters for that election. Despite all the threats by al-Qaeda et al that Iraqis who voted would be murdered, about 12 million Iraqis, or about 85%, defied these threats and voted. The Iraqis definitely want a democracy that can adequately protect their liberty.

Desertion by America of the Iraqi people before they are able to adequately protect themselves would be a moral outrage, an evil and thoughtless disregard of the legitimate obligations we have to the Iraqi people.

Abandoning the Iraqi people to a probable, ruthless tyranny composed of less than 20 thousand mass murderers of non-murderers, abandoning a people who desire democracy to their demonstrated degree, would be unconscionable, irresponsible, and just plain rotten. Furthermore, we would ultimately be causing many more Americans to also be put in harm's way than are in harm's way now.

Of course we must remove our military from Iraq as rapidly as we are able only after the Iraqi government ask us to, but only after they ask us to.

I guess, even though we are pretty much useless, we can't really leave with things as they are.

Things are not pretty much useless according to a large majority of our troops who are risking death and injury in Iraq everyday.

I think that we can't really leave no matter how things appear to our news media.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

...
those leaving iraq are the educated and well to do citizens . the nation is being denuded of the very citizens needed to build a new and stable society . we can't expect the fanatics and those poor iraqis that can't read or write to build a new country .
imo we are past the point of "no return" .
recently several iraqi newcomers to canada were interviewed - doctors , scientists , business-people , they showed little interest of ever wanting to return to iraq .
so who is going to build the "new society" ?
...
hbg

Of course they currently show little interest of ever wanting to return to Iraq. Only after the al-Qaeda in Iraq are finally subdued, should we examine their interest in wanting to return to iraq .

0 Replies

for anyone interested in understanding the internecine fighting of the various iraqi groups , i recommend reading the book :
"the prince of the marshes and other occupational hazards of a year in iraq" by rory stewart .
stewart was one of the administrators appointed to try and help the iraqis to establish a basic "self-government" .
as he found out quickly , with dozens of different tribes and political parties (i believe he talked about forty parties in his district alone) , some groups being supported by iran , others by former baathists ... and the list goes on and on , he simply could not get them to understand that they should co-operate with each other , instead they bickered , fought and killed ... and in the end blamed the interim adminustration for not doing enough .

when some leaders had agreed to appoint an interim police-chief - or some other iraqi administrator - , other groups would quickly appear and tell him that the newly appointed administrator was either in the pocket of the irianians , a former baathist , a disliked religious leader , a former ally of SH ... you name it .
and more often than not the newly appointed personwould be killed and again , the interim administration would be blamed ; this time for not providing protection (one thing is quite clear , there are simply not enough troops/police under the control of the administration to provide security) .

other examples he gave related to the handing out of reconstruction contracts . it didn't matter who received the contract , there were usually several village elders , clergy etc who would immediately say :
"this contract should have gone to my brother , my nephew , my friend etc ... the other guy is a crook ! why did you give him the contract ? ".

of course , there were plenty of mistakes made by the administration too ,
so it's really not surprising that it's been almost impossible to make any progress in iraq .
a very sad story !
hbg

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know