| Author | Message | ||
     Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4414 Registered: 10-2001  |
still waiting for Notehead to explain Bill's quote to all of us. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 223 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois: Several comments on your Jan 31 7:31 post: (1) You are right that the Bush administration has every reason to bring the troops home. The problem is that the Bush agenda to privatize Iraq's oil will require the indefinite presence of US troops. (2) SMPA is not petitioning the Bush administration. Our petition is directed at our Democratic senators and congressmen, urging them to uphold the Democratic Presidential campaign position that "This is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." (3) Your criticisms of the UN are as misinformed as your suggestion that yesterday's election reflected badly on the UN (when in fact the UN played a major role in designing that election). For example, your statement that the UN has "twiddled its thumbs" on Iraq denies the following facts: The first Gulf War was authorized by the UN, the subsequent sanctions were enforced by the UN, the initial WMD inspections were carried out by the UN and the inspections for WMDs prior to the Bush invasion were carried out by the UN. As far as the oil-for-food scandal, this program was under the jurisdiction of the Security Council and responsibility rests with Security Council members. This includes the United States as much as anyone else. (4) Your assertion that the UN failed to recognize the holocaust for 60 years turns is also misinformed. In 1948, the UN responded to the Holocaust by establishing the Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. In that same year, the UN also established the State of Israel. It should be mentioned that the US refused to pass the Genocide Convention for 40 years. As for last week's UN General Assembly to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz, that's something to applaud, not to denigrate. (5) Finally, your concern about US contributions to the UN budget would be better directed at the $300 billion that US taxpayers are being asked to squander on the Bush administration's war of conquest in Iraq. It's a war of choice that should never have happened and should be ended as quickly as possible. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 246 Registered: 8-2003 |
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2) WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power. Significance Not Diminished The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken. The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting. American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring. Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent. Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1244 Registered: 6-2001 |
IRAQ THE MODEL Sunday, January 30, 2005 The people have won. We would love to share what we did this morning with the whole world, we can't describe the feelings we've been through but we'll try to share as much as we can with you. We woke up this morning one hour before the alarm clock was supposed to ring. As a matter of fact, we barely slept at all last night out of excitement and anxiety. The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said: "You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's". This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street. The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer! We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear. We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center. I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that. From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full! Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph. The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all. I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center. How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends. Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not. I still recall the first group of comments that came to this blog 14 months ago when many of the readers asked "The Model?"… "Model for what?" Take a look today to meet the model of courage and human desire to achieve freedom; people walking across the fire to cast their votes. Could any model match this one!? Could any bravery match the Iraqis'!? Let the remaining tyrants of the world learn the lesson from this day. The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis s far but this hasn't stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination. Iraqis have truly raced the sun. I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants. I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn". Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box! These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history. It was hard for us to leave the center but we were happy because we were sure that we will stand here in front of the box again and again and again. Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom. No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respct and support the people's will. God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom. Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq. Mohammed and Omar. - posted by Omar @ 15:34 | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4415 Registered: 10-2001 |
still waiting for Notehead. Please tell all of us exactly what it is Bill Clinton told the world in 1998... | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1978 Registered: 5-2001  |
I responded at 2:00. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13057 Registered: 10-2001  |
Sbenois: Several comments on your Jan 31 7:31 post: (1) You are right that the Bush administration has every reason to bring the troops home. The problem is that the Bush agenda to privatize Iraq's oil will require the indefinite presence of US troops. I'm sure that once the dust has settled, the French will be happy to help out. (2) SMPA is not petitioning the Bush administration. Our petition is directed at our Democratic senators and congressmen, urging them to uphold the Democratic Presidential campaign position that "This is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." While you praised The Swimmer for his demand that 12k troops should come out, did you notice that Kerry yesterday completely disagreed with that plan and said that the troops should stay in? So much for the Democrats taking a stance on this issue. (3) Your criticisms of the UN are as misinformed as your suggestion that yesterday's election reflected badly on the UN (when in fact the UN played a major role in designing that election). For example, your statement that the UN has "twiddled its thumbs" on Iraq denies the following facts: The first Gulf War was authorized by the UN, the subsequent sanctions were enforced by the UN, the initial WMD inspections were carried out by the UN and the inspections for WMDs prior to the Bush invasion were carried out by the UN. The UN allowed 12 years of resolutions to be laughed at by Hussein. You can't deny it. End of story. As far as the oil-for-food scandal, this program was under the jurisdiction of the Security Council and responsibility rests with Security Council members. This includes the United States as much as anyone else. Way to go Paul. Once again you find a way to blame the US for something instead of blaming the UN. Not a surprise. Well I'm blaming the UN. So are fair minded Democrats and Republicans who all disgusted by the whole UN game (4) Your assertion that the UN failed to recognize the holocaust for 60 years turns is also misinformed. In 1948, the UN responded to the Holocaust by establishing the Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. You are joking right? For 60 years there was nothing but silence. And the best you can come up with is this? That just about says it all. In that same year, the UN also established the State of Israel. And they've done nothing in the 60 years since to show Israel any respect or welcome them as a full fledged, valued member. Nearly 1/3 of all resolutions passed by the UN is a shot at Israel. Hey Paul, has Israel ever been on the Security Council? I'll wait for your educated answer and full explanation as to why (not). It should be mentioned that the US refused to pass the Genocide Convention for 40 years. Another shot at the US. Why? As for last week's UN General Assembly to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz, that's something to applaud, not to denigrate. I'm applauding with the same respect and admiration that the UN has shown towards Israel in the past. Hardly any. By the way, have they condemned Arafat for the Olympic killings in 1972 yet? Or does brotherhood UN style not include showing compassion for murdered Israeli athletes simply trying to compete on the world stage? (5) Finally, your concern about US contributions to the UN budget would be better directed at the $300 billion that US taxpayers are being asked to squander on the Bush administration's war of conquest in Iraq. It's a war of choice that should never have happened and should be ended as quickly as possible. Nah, my disgust over tax money being wasted is far better off being directed at the UN. At least with the $300b we'll get some slight return. With the UN there's no benefit at all. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1980 Registered: 5-2001 |
S, Even if/when I disagree with you, you've got style.  | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1246 Registered: 6-2001 |
The word fearmonger(ing) as applied to the Left is supported by the following kinds of statements that the Left wanted the country and the rest of the world to believe. For example: It will take months to capture Baghdad! It will take years to capture Saddam and the bad guys! We will never win the trust of the Iraqi's! The Iraqi election should be postponed because the Iraqi Army won't be ready. We will lose thousands of American Troops in the "Iraqi Quagmire." Iraq will never embrace a democratic society! If I wanted to waste some time in the Attic, I could find similar statments (by the usual MOL suspects) verbatim, but that would be a waste of time... But, Alas! "God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom." Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq. Mohammed and Omar. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3053 Registered: 8-2003 |
The Iraqi elections are a vindication for one man who had the bravery to stick up for the Iraqi people -- and that man is Bill Clinton. So alleges a Mr. Reynolds at MSNBC. Bill had the foresight to -- in 1998 (?) -- sign something along the lines of the Iraqi Freedom Act or some such, where he dedicated the US to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein via inside, or outside, or a combination of those two forces to end the rule of Saddam Hussein. How 'bout that! That begs the question -- glory dog that Clinton is -- why isn't he standing up and taking the bow on this? | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13059 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dearest Marie, While this election is indeedy a big W for W, let's not let the event cloud the disaster that the last 6-9 months has been. Iraq the Model is written by an Iraqi partisan (www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com) who is rightfully proud of where his country is going. But Americans - of all parties - should be deeply troubled by what it took to get here. We've had troops being fired on while they sat defenseless in their unprotected vehicles. We've seen atrocities at Abu Ghraib that denigrated America and our core values. We've lost well over 1400 Americans. The way that this war was prosecuted was a complete miscalculation by Bush/Cheney/Rice and mostly Rumsfeld. For that part, they get an F. A big F. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3055 Registered: 8-2003 |
This is the first war in the nation's history where we've had troops being fired on while they sat 'defenseless' in their unprotected vehicles. There were absolutely no atrociites commited by Americans in any other victorious war. Losing 1400 Americans is unprecedented and outrageously too high a number, and the war was entirely, completely miscalculated including the 2 week run smack into Baghdad. "F" stand for complete failure. I'm not saying that's entirely what you're implying, sbenois. But if I take your points and give them a real run as Bush detractors are doing, I just can't agree with all that. There are things I'd do differently in hindsight, but there's no way you can call this a complete failure at this point in time, and especially looking at the totality of an effort that isn't finished yet. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1248 Registered: 6-2001 |
"We've had troops being fired on while they sat defenseless in their unprotected vehicles." Not according to my Marine friend who is over there right now, "celebrating" with his Iraqi friends and fellow Iraqi soldiers. The "unprotected vehicle incident(s) were quickly remedied and were not a widespread problem for our soldiers. Technologically, our military is the best protected, most advanced military in the WORLD. "We've seen atrocities at Abu Ghraib..." We're at war. Horrible things happen. The handful of soldiers responsible have been held accountable. "America and our core values" - you mean like when we free a society from a bloodthirsty dictator? Like THOSE kinds of core values? "The way that this war was prosecuted completely miscalculated by Bush and Rumsfeld." You're kidding, right? We just saw the first free election in Iraq in over 50 years! Jeeesh... By the way, this wasn't a victory for Bush - it was a victory for the the world. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13060 Registered: 10-2001 |
Okay, that's fair. So I retract it. Sure we could have planned better - and I'll bet that Bush is probably the first one to wish that we had. But you're right. It's not a big fat F. Reasonably speaking, it's probably a C+ | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13061 Registered: 10-2001 |
So what would you give it Marie? An A+ or an A++. Jeeeeeesh. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4282 Registered: 10-1999  |
"The unprotected vehicle incident(s) were quickly remedied and were not a widespread problem for our soldiers." Except for the dead and maimed ones. Sorry, but there's a low tolerance for the Rumsfeld party line ... | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1249 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sbenny, I'd give it an A+++. How was DL? | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13063 Registered: 10-2001 |
A+++ | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7423 Registered: 5-2001 |
An interesting tidbit is that on a percentage basis we have had more troops killed in Iraq than in the first two years of our involvement in Vietnam, where ultimately we lost more than 50,000 killed. Another mistake often made is to assume that democracy in Iraq will be like democracy in the west. It very well may not be. The elections have basically made Ayatollah Sistani the supreme leader of that country. There is no question that the Shite political leaders will be listening when he whispers in their ears. How Iraq develops depends on the Grand Ayatollah's decisions. Will he be merciful towards the Sunnis or will he seak revenge? Will the military become essentially a Shia force or will it be representative of the whole country? I rather suspect, as does Charles Krautheimer btw, that the only way to have a viable military in a reasonable length of time is to staff it with Shia and Kurd militias. Short term this is to our advantage, because we can begin to stand down our military forces. However, long term? Who knows. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 224 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois: Regarding your 1-31-05 8:01 pm post: I'll pass over the predictable anti-French cliche, the Kennedy-slur and the overall tone of jingoism, to go over these specifics: "The UN allowed 12 years of resolutions to be laughed at by Hussein. You can't deny it. End of story." (Sbenois) Really? Iraq was disarmed under the UN resolutions -- remember no WMDs -- and the economic sanctions were so effective that at least 500,000 (mostly children) died as a result (Unicef estimate). You later go on to state that "Nearly 1/3 of all resolutions passed by the UN is a shot at Israel." Let me ask you -- how many of these resolutions has Israel complied with? Is it Israel or Iraq who was "laughing at UN resolutions?" You ask why Israel has not been a member of the Security Council. My understanding is that membership is determined by rotation through regional country groups. Israel has been denied membership in the Middle East-Asian group presumably because of Arab opposition. However, Israel has received membership status in the Western Europe group, so it's not clear to me why Israel has still not been named to the Security Council. Perhaps you can explain. A little research showed that your claim that the UN has remained silent on the holocaust for 60 years, prior to last week's General Assembly memorial, is wrong. Here are a couple of UNESCO conferences co-sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in the 1990s that dealt with the issue of the holocaust (the Wiesenthal Center is an NGO accredited with both the UN and UNESCO): (text of speech by UNESCO Dir-Gen Koïchiro Matsuura) "Ladies and Gentlemen, "Let me now briefly provide some background that places this conference in context. In 1991, Simon Wiesenthal visited Paris and came to UNESCO to discuss the then new phenomenon of neo-Nazi antisemitic computer games which were circulating in Europe. This visit resulted in an invitation to the Wiesenthal Centre to organize the First International Conference on “Educating for Tolerance: The Case of Resurgent Antisemitism”, which was held at UNESCO Headquarters in June 1992. Subsequently, the Centre invited UNESCO, in the person of the serving Director-General, to inaugurate its Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, which duly took place in February 1993. "In 1994, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre entered into official relations with UNESCO, which facilitated our collaboration in subsequent years. Indeed, three conferences were organized by the Centre under the auspices of UNESCO in the years that followed: “From Xenophobia to Tolerance: Jews and Moslems in Europe and Beyond” in Paris in 1995; “Migrantophobia, Caucasophobia and Antisemitism” in Moscow in 1996; and “Kosovo in the Mirror of Auschwitz” in Vienna in 1997. "In July 2002, at our Headquarters here in Paris, I met with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Deputy Dean of the Wiesenthal Centre, to discuss its relations of cooperation with UNESCO. We agreed on that occasion to convene a follow-up conference in order to undertake an up-dated status check on antisemitism and to propose programmatic guidelines for containing its spread. "This second conference will not only analyze the phenomenon of antisemitism, but will also address the responsibilities of parliaments, academics and scholars, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Internet providers as actors in the campaign for tolerance. Cases will be presented as models of good practice to show what can be done: for example, the 'Tools for Tolerance' hands-on educational project in California; the “SOS Truth and Security” grassroots campaign in the Paris suburbs; the European Network Against Racism as a lobby against hate; and a German pastor’s approach to changing skinhead attitudes in Brandenburg." http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:mdzoZCaHESEJ:portal.unesco.org/en/file_down load.php/4c2af3045fc23f0d1a48d720d7f33600074%2B2nd%2BConference%2BEducating%2Bfo r%2BTolerance.%2BCase%2BResurgent%2BAntisemitism.pdf+wiesenthal+united+nations&h l=en&ie=UTF-8 Regarding your question about whether the UN has condemned the terrorist murders of the Israel Olympic athletes, to my knowledge the answer is No. Similarly, I'm not aware of UN condemnation of Russians murdered by Chechen terrorists, nor do I think the UN has condemned the terrorist murders of 36 praying Palestinians by Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein. It's a very long list that grows longer every day. I don't think you've made a point here. You posit the line that the UN as an institution is responsible for the Oil-for-Food scandal. Here are some facts. Quoting Fairfield Univ. prof. Joy Gordon on Democracy Now!: "There's a difference between the Security Council and the Secretariat, and many of the policies that permitted the smuggling and kickback to take place were, cannot be laid at the feet of the Secretary General. They are the policies of the Security Council and the Secretary General has no control over the Security Council. "And if we look at the claim that the U.N. failed to catch contracts with pricing irregularities, well again, that goes to the Security Council whose job was to review all of these contracts and if we look at the policies and the failures of, that are now being laid at the feet of the United Nations, many of them, in fact, are due not only to the Security Council but to particular members within the Security Council. "For many of these things, the policy for example that allowed the Iraqi government to choose who it would trade with, well that was a Security Council Resolution 986 in combination with a Security Council-approved memorandum of understanding. And the member states, including the United States, were in support of that. "If we look at the committees, if we look at the Council's failure to block contracts with pricing irregularities, and it was the Security Council's responsibility, not the Oil-For-Food staff, they did not have the authority to block contracts, only to present information to the Security Council, then in fact what we see is none of the members of the Security Council, including the United States, chose to block contracts where there were obvious price irregularities, even when U.N. staff presented that information with documentation to them." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/03/1451205 Here's a more in-depth article by Joy Gordon in the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041206&s=gordon For the record, my position on Israel and its relationship to the United Nations is that of the Israeli peace movement, in particular the Peace Now movement. In the US, this position is advocated by Americans for Peace Now. http://www.peacenow.org/index.html Finally, I'm aware of the existence of antisemitism within the UN and elsewhere. One of SMPA's members, Al Levin, is producing a documentary on the proliferation of the "Protocols of Zion" in the Middle East. And the relationship of the Wiesenthal Center with UNESCO has had its confrontations. But none of this diminishes the indispensable role of the United Nations and the UN Charter as the primary vehicles for achieving peace and security in the world -- including Iraq. |
