Free Iraq
The US's occupation of Iraq will see to it that the Lion of Babylon rises again .. سنـُبعـَث ُ من جَديد ، وإلى ضَـيـرِِهِـم
|
| Unrevealed Milestones in the Iraqi National Nuclear Program: 1981-1991 | معالم وأحداث غير مكشوفة في البرنامج النووي الوطني العراقي 1981-1991 | 
|
|
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Cheney's gumption
"MR. RUSSERT: During the 2000 campaign you were on the program when we were talking about the Persian Gulf War and looking back and I asked whether you had any regrets about taking Saddam out at that time. And you said no. And then you added this, and I want to talk about it. Let’s watch:
(Videotape, August 27, 2000):
MR. CHENEY: Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards, they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted, instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression, to one in which we were an imperialist power willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: “Imperialist power,” “moving willy-nilly,” “taking down governments.” Is that how we’re going to be perceived this time?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I hope not, Tim. " (my italics)
Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003
Yeah, right ! .... (White House Scraps 'Coalition of the Willing' List January 21, 2005)
"When pressed on mistakes he had made over Iraq, Mr Cheney said he had "miscalculated" the speed of the country's recovery. This he blamed on the brutality Saddam Hussein had wielded against his own people, emphasising in particular the suppression of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings that followed the 1991 Gulf war. "The brutality that he used in 1991 to put down the revolt at the time I think just had devastating consequences in terms of the ability of the Iraqi people to recover from his rule," he said. "It's taken a very long time for them to come back, to take control of their own affairs... I think the hundreds of thousands of people, literally, that were slaughtered during that period of time, including anybody who had the gumption to stand up and challenge him, made the situation tougher than I would have thought."
Cheney 'misjudged' Iraq recovery January 20, 2005
American intelligent 'Intelligence' unfortunately failed yet again to enlighten Cheney by misreading the mind of the Iraqi people and for not realizing their lack of gumption.
Ergo, it is not the misinformation and lies concerning Iraqi WMDs or the lack of ties to Al-Qaida; it is the fault of the Iraqi people themselves for not accomodating Cheney in being in the correct mind-set, after 13 years of criminal US imposed economic sanctions, to welcome the American occupation and open their hearts and minds to their bombing with American Freedom and Democracy.
As the Arabic proverb goes: "The excuse is worse than the crime", in this case a war crime.
And perhaps one should take a closer look at Cheney's own 'gumption':
The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney CBC-TV October 6, 2004
Aside from his favorite 'Intelligence' source on Iraqi sentiments
Comments:
<< Home
A letter published in today's Guardian newspaper, in the UK:
Iraq elections are not freeFriday January 21, 2005
The Guardian
Iraq is being denied free and fair elections, after enduring decades of Saddam's brutal dictatorship. The US and British occupation governments have engineered a process for reproducing the US-appointed Iraqi interim government to prolong the occupation and incite sectarian and ethnic conflicts.
Millions of Iraqis, under siege in many parts of their homeland, will be disenfranchised. While boycotting this undemocratic exercise, we strongly condemn all forms of violence against Iraqis participating in it. We, as exiles, are confident that the vast majority of Iraqis, at home and abroad, shall unite to end the US-led occupation and establish democracy, whatever their stance on participation.
We echo opinions within Iraq stressing the impossibility of holding free and fair elections while under occupation, and being subjected to war crimes by the US-led forces.
However, we support demands for minimal pre-conditions: setting a strict timetable for the withdrawal of all occupation forces; ceasing all attacks, and confining all occupation forces to barracks until withdrawal; ending martial law and releasing all political prisoners; establishing an independent election commission, led by Iraq's senior serving and retired judges, and including all Iraq's political forces. It could be assisted by anti-occupation figures, eg Nelson Mandela, and the UN.
Sami Ramadani, Haifa Zangana, Prof Kamal Majid, Tahrir Numan, Dr Imad Khaddur, iMundher Adhami, and 14 others.One of the signatories was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4's late evening current affairs programme, "The World Tonight". He said that the interim government (I forget the name of the individual) was telling Iraqis that if they did not vote they would be committing treason. This is wrong: in a democracy, your right NOT to vote is equal to your right to vote.
The thing is: the 30 January election is not going to bring the US occupation to an end. The US has made it clear that it intends to stay in Iraq for many years; it is creating the largest embassy anywhere and an American-run civil service and - it is reported - four military bases. This "election" is only helping the Americans to consolidate their position in Iraq. It is not intended to help Iraqis. And by this I do not mean to denigrate the undoubted courage of the Iraqi election candidates.
Vote is at risk of inflaming, not taming, the region ... The US is now frantically looking for indirect ways to broaden the new administration's representative base.
"The Americans have slowly realised that the elections could trigger civil war if the Sunnis have no stake," ... If Iraq plunges deeper into post-election mayhem, Turkey, like Iran and Syria, may take matters into its own handsRachel, a Brit in London
Iraq elections are not freeFriday January 21, 2005
The Guardian
Iraq is being denied free and fair elections, after enduring decades of Saddam's brutal dictatorship. The US and British occupation governments have engineered a process for reproducing the US-appointed Iraqi interim government to prolong the occupation and incite sectarian and ethnic conflicts.
Millions of Iraqis, under siege in many parts of their homeland, will be disenfranchised. While boycotting this undemocratic exercise, we strongly condemn all forms of violence against Iraqis participating in it. We, as exiles, are confident that the vast majority of Iraqis, at home and abroad, shall unite to end the US-led occupation and establish democracy, whatever their stance on participation.
We echo opinions within Iraq stressing the impossibility of holding free and fair elections while under occupation, and being subjected to war crimes by the US-led forces.
However, we support demands for minimal pre-conditions: setting a strict timetable for the withdrawal of all occupation forces; ceasing all attacks, and confining all occupation forces to barracks until withdrawal; ending martial law and releasing all political prisoners; establishing an independent election commission, led by Iraq's senior serving and retired judges, and including all Iraq's political forces. It could be assisted by anti-occupation figures, eg Nelson Mandela, and the UN.
Sami Ramadani, Haifa Zangana, Prof Kamal Majid, Tahrir Numan, Dr Imad Khaddur, iMundher Adhami, and 14 others.One of the signatories was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4's late evening current affairs programme, "The World Tonight". He said that the interim government (I forget the name of the individual) was telling Iraqis that if they did not vote they would be committing treason. This is wrong: in a democracy, your right NOT to vote is equal to your right to vote.
The thing is: the 30 January election is not going to bring the US occupation to an end. The US has made it clear that it intends to stay in Iraq for many years; it is creating the largest embassy anywhere and an American-run civil service and - it is reported - four military bases. This "election" is only helping the Americans to consolidate their position in Iraq. It is not intended to help Iraqis. And by this I do not mean to denigrate the undoubted courage of the Iraqi election candidates.
Vote is at risk of inflaming, not taming, the region ... The US is now frantically looking for indirect ways to broaden the new administration's representative base.
"The Americans have slowly realised that the elections could trigger civil war if the Sunnis have no stake," ... If Iraq plunges deeper into post-election mayhem, Turkey, like Iran and Syria, may take matters into its own handsRachel, a Brit in London
# posted by 
: January 22, 2005 1:48 AM
: January 22, 2005 1:48 AM
America has WMDs - perhaps we should insist on sending inspectors into the US before anywhere else.
Anyway,
Iran's legislative watchdog has said women can run in June's presidential election, clearing up an ambiguous article of the constitution.which shows that Iran does not need lessons in democracy from the US, so just piss off America - no one wants your "liberation" hypocrisy.
Rachel, a Brit in London
Anyway,
Iran's legislative watchdog has said women can run in June's presidential election, clearing up an ambiguous article of the constitution.which shows that Iran does not need lessons in democracy from the US, so just piss off America - no one wants your "liberation" hypocrisy.
Rachel, a Brit in London
# posted by : January 22, 2005 5:36 PM
: January 22, 2005 5:36 PM
OXEN is making it up, or simply a true believer of PolitInfo, making it up.
There is no evidence on Earth that I am aware of that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I have dug into all the previous allegations I have found, and they emerged as ghostly as the pre-Iraq war allegations.
Try reading an article that can at least spell correctly, here or note that, in the whole world, it is the US alone that is dissatisfied with the IAEA.
This post was about Cheney (and to call it Gumption is cute in its quaintness, he's a scurrilous liar, war-monger, the candidate for rapists, and in the 96th percentile for most conservative elected Federal officials in the last 75 years) and OXEN is talking about Iran.
Iran has signed extra protocols to the NPT to try to avoid the war-mongering cries from the new Imperialists.
No wonder the modern American Republican praises Polk (gaining ground in popularity contests in America). He started a war based on lies which enriched his greedy friends, too.
"Let them sport their pleasure boats on the seas of tears of orphans and widows." -- Congressional Record, Jan 11, 1848
There is no evidence on Earth that I am aware of that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I have dug into all the previous allegations I have found, and they emerged as ghostly as the pre-Iraq war allegations.
Try reading an article that can at least spell correctly, here or note that, in the whole world, it is the US alone that is dissatisfied with the IAEA.
This post was about Cheney (and to call it Gumption is cute in its quaintness, he's a scurrilous liar, war-monger, the candidate for rapists, and in the 96th percentile for most conservative elected Federal officials in the last 75 years) and OXEN is talking about Iran.
Iran has signed extra protocols to the NPT to try to avoid the war-mongering cries from the new Imperialists.
No wonder the modern American Republican praises Polk (gaining ground in popularity contests in America). He started a war based on lies which enriched his greedy friends, too.
"Let them sport their pleasure boats on the seas of tears of orphans and widows." -- Congressional Record, Jan 11, 1848
THen can you give me a good reason as to why Iran is enriching uranium?
And here's a story that was poorly reported in the press.
Note the phrase "nearly all"
------------------
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041114200741.x1u7zkye.html
In Tehran, nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said Iran had agreed to suspend "nearly all" of its uranium enrichment-related activities as part of a deal with Britain, France and Germany, in a step that eases the threat of possible UN sanctions over its controversial nuclear programme.
And here's a story that was poorly reported in the press.
Note the phrase "nearly all"
------------------
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041114200741.x1u7zkye.html
In Tehran, nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said Iran had agreed to suspend "nearly all" of its uranium enrichment-related activities as part of a deal with Britain, France and Germany, in a step that eases the threat of possible UN sanctions over its controversial nuclear programme.
I think that there are several major paradoxes, maybe even hypocrisies being espoused by my government, the U.S.:
1) We took no action whatsoever over Israel's stealing of nuclear technlogy secrets from the U.S. via Pollard; yet, we have our shorts in a swivet over Iran's supposed development of the same technology received via Kahn of Pakistan;
2) We have failed to sanction Pakistan over the selling of nuclear technology as they are a substantial player and necessary ally against both the growing Islamic fundamentalist movements and in keeping the peace with India;
3) We have failed to take any action whatsoever in the Sudan beccause it is easy to see it both as a substantial quagmire and they have no resources that we need (i.e., developed oil reserves). Plus, there would be little majority support from the U.S. population over suporting an excedingly black and poor population that is being subjected to genocidal practices -- if they were white, it would be an entirely different topic;
4) We failed to heed any of our well-educated and knowledgable experts on the historical and ethnic issues of Iraq and how quickly it could and would destabilize, especially under a "Crusader" miliary occupation;
5) We were arrogant beyond belief in invading and occupying Iraq because we genuinely did not believe them to be equal to ourselves. Our military elite did not believe they could stand against us and failed to remember that there is more than one way of conducting warfare;
6) When we destroyed Fallujah, we lost all credibiity for both the interim government and ourselves; one cannot destroy either a city or a country to save it.
1) We took no action whatsoever over Israel's stealing of nuclear technlogy secrets from the U.S. via Pollard; yet, we have our shorts in a swivet over Iran's supposed development of the same technology received via Kahn of Pakistan;
2) We have failed to sanction Pakistan over the selling of nuclear technology as they are a substantial player and necessary ally against both the growing Islamic fundamentalist movements and in keeping the peace with India;
3) We have failed to take any action whatsoever in the Sudan beccause it is easy to see it both as a substantial quagmire and they have no resources that we need (i.e., developed oil reserves). Plus, there would be little majority support from the U.S. population over suporting an excedingly black and poor population that is being subjected to genocidal practices -- if they were white, it would be an entirely different topic;
4) We failed to heed any of our well-educated and knowledgable experts on the historical and ethnic issues of Iraq and how quickly it could and would destabilize, especially under a "Crusader" miliary occupation;
5) We were arrogant beyond belief in invading and occupying Iraq because we genuinely did not believe them to be equal to ourselves. Our military elite did not believe they could stand against us and failed to remember that there is more than one way of conducting warfare;
6) When we destroyed Fallujah, we lost all credibiity for both the interim government and ourselves; one cannot destroy either a city or a country to save it.
Dr. Khadduri, please delete that offensive post which addresses the non-existent commenter Rachel.
OXEN, I've been told the reactors purchased by the Iranians run on enriched uranium. No uranium has been found at weapons grade that hasn't been explained to the satisfaction of the relevant arms control experts.
The French, you realize, have no nuclear waste problem.
Decades ago the US promised to do something about our own nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain plan, which Bush LIED about supporting (he promised not to, then did) is based on shoddy science. The science of deep earth shifts is about twenty to twenty-five years. If has almost no support of evidence. But if they screwed it up, Nevadans better hope they have somewhere else to live for the next 25,000 years.
Post a Comment
OXEN, I've been told the reactors purchased by the Iranians run on enriched uranium. No uranium has been found at weapons grade that hasn't been explained to the satisfaction of the relevant arms control experts.
The French, you realize, have no nuclear waste problem.
Decades ago the US promised to do something about our own nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain plan, which Bush LIED about supporting (he promised not to, then did) is based on shoddy science. The science of deep earth shifts is about twenty to twenty-five years. If has almost no support of evidence. But if they screwed it up, Nevadans better hope they have somewhere else to live for the next 25,000 years.
<< Home
Archives
01/12/04 01/01/05 01/02/05 01/03/05 01/04/05 01/05/05 01/06/05 01/07/05 01/08/05 01/09/05 01/10/05 01/11/05 01/12/05 01/01/06 01/02/06 01/03/06 01/04/06 01/05/06 01/06/06 01/07/06 01/08/06 01/09/06 01/10/06 01/11/06 01/12/06 01/01/07 01/02/07 01/03/07 01/04/07 01/05/07 01/06/07 01/07/07 01/08/07 01/09/07 01/10/07 01/11/07 01/12/07 01/01/08 01/02/08 01/03/08 01/04/08 01/05/08 01/06/08 01/07/08 01/08/08 01/09/08 01/10/08 01/11/08 01/12/08 01/01/09 01/02/09 01/03/09 01/04/09 01/05/09 01/06/09 01/07/09 01/08/09 01/09/09 01/10/09 01/11/09 01/12/09 01/01/10 01/02/10 01/03/10 01/04/10 01/05/10 01/06/10 01/08/10 01/09/10 01/10/10 01/11/10 01/12/10 01/01/11 01/02/11 01/03/11 01/04/11 01/05/11 01/06/11 01/07/11 01/08/11 01/09/11 01/10/11 01/11/11 01/12/11 01/01/12 01/02/12 01/03/12 01/04/12 01/05/12 01/06/12 01/07/12 01/08/12 01/09/12 01/10/12 01/11/12 01/12/12 01/01/13 01/02/13 01/03/13 01/04/13 01/05/13
