you know, we have a thread about the State of the Union speech…
…you must be blind to anything but this thread lately, Goldphish. 
Goldphish I believe your a bit misinformed.
Allow me to help.
Who are the Global Terrorists?
Noam Chomsky
Ken Booth & Tim Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, May, 2002
After the atrocities of 11 September, the victim declared a “war on terrorism,” targeting not just the suspected perpetrators, but the country in which they were located, and others charged with terrorism worldwide. President Bush pledged to “rid the world of evildoers” and “not let evil stand,” echoing Ronald Reagan’s denunciation of the “evil scourge of terrorism” in 1985 – specifically, state-supported international terrorism, which had been declared to be the core issue of US foreign policy as his administration came into office.NOTE{New York Times, Oct. 18, 1985.} The focal points of the first war on terror were the Middle East and Central America, where Honduras was the major base for US operations. The military component of the re-declared war is led by Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Reagan’s special representative to the Middle East; the diplomatic efforts at the UN by John Negroponte, Reagan’s Ambassador to Honduras. Planning is largely in the hands of other leading figures of the Reagan-Bush (I) administrations.
The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by “terrorism”? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree – in fact, strenuously insist – that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil.
The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.” NOTE{US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
The first war received strong endorsement. The UN General Assembly condemned international terrorism two months after Reagan’s denunciation, again in much stronger and more explicit terms in 1987. NOTE{GA Res. 40/61, 9 Dec. 1985; Res. 42/159, 7 Dec. 1987.} Support was not unanimous, however. The 1987 resolution passed 153-2, Honduras abstaining. Explaining their negative vote, the US and Israel identified the fatal flaw: the statement that “nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right…, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation…” That was understood to apply to the struggle of the African National Congress against the Apartheid regime of South Africa (a US ally, while the ANC was officially labelled a “terrorist organization”); and to the Israeli military occupation, then in its 20th year, sustained by US military and diplomatic support in virtual international isolation. Presumably because of US opposition, the UN resolution against terrorism was ignored. NOTE{See my Necessary Illusions (Boston: South End, 1989), chap. 4; my essay in Alex George, ed., Western State Terrorism (Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell, 1991).}
Reagan’s 1985 condemnation referred specifically to terrorism in the Middle East, selected as the lead story of 1985 in an AP poll. But for Secretary of State George Shultz, the administration moderate, the most “alarming” manifestation of “state-sponsored terrorism,” a plague spread by “depraved opponents of civilization itself” in “a return to barbarism in the modern age,” was frighteningly close to home. There is “a cancer, right here in our land mass,” Shultz informed Congress, threatening to conquer the hemisphere in a “revolution without borders,” a interesting fabrication exposed at once but regularly reiterated with appropriate shudders. NOTE{Shultz, “Terrorism: The Challenge to the Democracies,” June 24, 1984 (State Dept. Current Policy No. 589); “Terrorism and the Modern World,” Oct. 25, 1984 (State Department Current Policy No. 629). Shultz’s congressional testimony, 1986, 1983, the former part of a major campaign to gain more funding for the contras; see Jack Spence and Eldon Kenworthy in Thomas Walker, ed., Reagan versus the Sandinistas (Boulder, London: Westview, 1987).}
So severe was the threat that on Law Day (1 May) 1985, the President announced an embargo “in response to the emergency situation created by the Nicaraguan Government’s aggressive activities in Central America.” He also declared a national emergency, renewed annually, because “the policies and actions of the Government of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
“The terrorists – and the other states that aid and abet them – serve as grim reminders that democracy is fragile and needs to be guarded with vigilance,” Shultz warned. We must “cut [the Nicaraguan cancer] out,” and not by gentle means: “Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table,” Shultz declared, condemning those who advocate “utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation.” The US was exercising “the power element of the equation” with mercenary forces based in Honduras, under Negroponte’s supervision, and successfully blocking the “utopian, legalistic means” pursued by the World Court and the Latin American Contadora nations – as Washington continued to do until its terrorist wars were won. NOTE{Shultz, “Moral Principles and Strategic Interests,” April 14, 1986 (State Department, Current Policy No. 820).}
Reagan’s condemnation of the “evil scourge” was issued at a meeting in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who arrived to join in the call to extirpate the evil shortly after he had sent his bombers to attack Tunis, killing 75 people with smart bombs that tore them to shreds among other atrocities recorded by the prominent Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk on the scene. Washington cooperated by failing to warn its ally Tunisia that the bombers were on the way. Shultz informed Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir that Washington “had considerable sympathy for the Israeli action,” but drew back when the Security Council unanimously denounced the bombing as an “act of armed aggression” (US abstaining).NOTE{NYT, Oct. 17, 18; Kapeliouk, Yediot Ahronot, Nov. 15, 1985. Foreknowledge, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3; Geoffrey Jansen, Middle East International, Oct 11, 1985. Bernard Gwertzman, NYT, Oct. 2, 7, 1985.}
A second candidate for most extreme act of Mideast international terrorism in the peak year of 1985 is a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. The bomb was placed outside a Mosque, timed to explode when worshippers left. “About 250 girls and women in flowing black chadors, pouring out of Friday prayers at the Imam Rida Mosque, took the brunt of the blast,” Nora Boustany reported. The bomb also “burned babies in their beds,” killed children “as they walked home from the mosque,” and “devastated the main street of the densely populated” West Beirut suburb. The target was a Shi’ite leader accused of complicity in terrorism, but he escaped. The crime was organized by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of British intelligence. NOTE{Boustany, Washington Post Weekly, March 14, 1988; Bob Woodward, Veil (Simon & Schuster, 1987, 396f.).}
The only other competitor for the prize is the “Iron Fist” operations that Peres directed in March in occupied Lebanon, reaching new depths of “calculated brutality and arbitrary murder,” a Western diplomat familiar with the area observed, as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shelled villages, carted off the male population, killed dozens of villagers in addition to many massacred by the IDF’s paramilitary associates, shelled hospitals and took patients away for “interrogation,” along with numerous other atrocities. NOTE{Guardian, March 6, 1985. For details and sources, see my “Middle East Terrorism and the American Ideological System,” in Pirates and Emperors (New York: Claremont 1986; Montreal: Black Rose, 1988), reprinted in Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds., Blaming the Victims (London: Verso, 1988).} The IDF high command described the targets as “terrorist villagers.” The operations against them must continue, the military correspondent of the Jerusalem Post (Hirsh Goodman) added, because the IDF must “maintain order and security” in occupied Lebanon despite “the price the inhabitants will have to pay.”
Like Israel’s invasion of Lebanon 3 years earlier, leaving some 18,000 killed, these actions and others in Lebanon were not undertaken in self-defense but rather for political ends, as recognized at once in Israel. The same was true, almost entirely, of those that followed, up to Peres’s murderous invasion of 1996. But all relied crucially on US military and diplomatic support. Accordingly, they too do not enter the annals of international terrorism.
In brief, there was nothing odd about the proclamations of the leading co-conspirators in Mideast international terrorism, which therefore passed without comment at the peak moment of horror at the “return to barbarism.”
The well-remembered prize-winner for 1985 is the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and brutal murder of a passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, doubtless a vile terrrorist act, and surely not justified by the claim that it was in retaliation for the far worse Tunis atrocities and a pre-emptive effort to deter others. Adopting moral truisms, the same holds of our own acts of retaliation or pre-emption.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of “terrorism” given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against us, not the terrorism we carry out against them. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an “earthly paradise” as they fought off the “Chinese bandits” terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find.
The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only “chaos and disorder.” The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its “unlawful use of force,” ordering it to terminate these international terrorist crimes and pay substantial reparations to Nicaragua (June 1986). The Court decision was dismissed with contempt, as was a subsequent Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law (vetoed by the US) and repeated General Assembly resolutions (US and Israel opposed, in one case joined by El Salvador).
As the Court decision was announced, Congress substantially increased funding for the mercenary forces engaged in “the unlawful use of force.” Shortly after, the US command directed them to attack “soft targets” – undefended civilian targets – and to avoid combat with the Nicaraguan army, as they could do, thanks to US control of the skies and the sophisticated communication equipment provided to the terrorist forces. The tactic was considered reasonable by prominent commentators as long as it satisfied “the test of cost-benefit analysis,” an analysis of “the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end” – “democracy” as Western elites understand the term, an interpretation illustrated graphically in the region. NOTE{For details, see my Culture of Terrorism (Boston: South End, 1988), 77f.}
State Department Legal Advisor Abraham Sofaer explained why the US was entitled to reject ICJ jurisdiction. In earlier years, most members of the UN “were aligned with the United States and shared its views regarding world order.” But since decolonization a “majority often opposes the United States on important international questions.” Accordingly, we must “reserve to ourselves the power to determine” how we will act and which matters fall “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States” – in this case, the terrorist acts against Nicaragua condemned by the Court and the Security Council. For similar reasons, since the 1960s the US has been far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions on a wide range of issues, Britain second, France a distant third.NOTE{Sofaer, The United States and the World Court (State Dept. Current Policy 769), Dec. 1985.}
Washington waged its “war on terrorism” by creating an international terror network of unprecedented scale, and employing it worldwide, with lethal and long-lasting effects. In Central America, terror guided and supported by the US reached its most extreme levels in countries where the state security forces themselves were the immediate agents of international terrorism. The effects were reviewed in a 1994 conference organized by Salvadoran Jesuits, whose experiences had been particularly gruesome. NOTE{Juan Hern ndez Pico, _Env
rest assured he has no intention of doing the right thing goldphish. no matter what he say’s. When people start talking about the speech as if it were real, I mean, that’s scary. They are lying to us. Know that. Just please know that.
I’ll have to look over your post, with an open mind as possible, when I have time… thanks.
No I didn’t see the “speech” thread… ooops!
Well, I read the article thnkfstpal posted and find it interesting but not very surprising. It points out US hippocracy but says nothing of what a proposed solution may be to this quagmire of suffering and human indecency.
I am not saying the US is without shortcomings nor did I think military action was the best recourse for 9-11. In fact I was quite upset by our swift retaliation and subsequent invasion of Iraq… which all pointed to an unwillingless to stop and try to cut thru the cycle of violence that plagues our world and humans in general.
But here we stand. And what are we to do? In spite of the atrocites that have taken place and the guilt that is spread the world over I don’t think now is the time to halt operations in Iraq. They got the ball rolling and it must see its end whether that end is good, justified, proper or not. Then maybe we, as a nation, as a gov’t, as a people can learn from these actions and perhaps act better with potential better results in the future.
Not to mention I think the Iraqis need our help in hopes that a stable gov’t in Iraq will lead to less violence and less human death and suffering.
The thing to look forward to is this present cycle will end. The situation in Iraq is coming to its “shatter point” and change is in the air. Bush has only 2 years to make good on whatever he is trying to do and the American people are flexing their power. Soon we will have a new president and a new course in Iraq. It will be very interesting to see where we stand in another year or so.
not quite yet eh goldphish, hmmmmmm people are dying yet you think we should stay and not leave? hmmmmm wait a sec. Ok, you need a plan. THIS IS THE BETTER RIGHT PLAN THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, WE ARE NOT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN POWER RIGHT NOW ARE SOCIOPATHIC MURDERERS. got it yet? plan below…
The Kucinich Plan for Iraq
Submitted by Dennis Kucinich on Mon, 2007-01-15 08:35.
Kucinich unveils comprehensive exit plan to bring troops home, stabilize Iraq
Dennis J Kucinich, Monday, January 8, 2007, New York City
In November of 2006, after an October upsurge in violence in Iraq, the American people moved decisively to reject Republican rule, principally because of the conduct of the war. Democratic leaders well understand we regained control of the Congress because of the situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of US involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US troops.
There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity.
The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without establishing an ending date for the so called troop surge. By definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation, more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents who practice against our troops.
What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision is not President Bush’s alone to make.
Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has the war-making power. Congress appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in Iraq.
There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President Bush’s term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them home.
It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.
If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of disaster.
The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created a financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are talking about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten. Their country has been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the Lancet Report which surveyed casualties from March of 2003 to July of 2006] the shredding of the social fabric of the nation, civil war, lack of access to food, shelter, electricity, clean drinking water and health care because this Administration, with the active participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, without conscience, without international law.
The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community.
I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration’s policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die.
These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:
-
The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.
-
.US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.
-
Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.
Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.
It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.
- Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, “This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it.” The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.
A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.
The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.
It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
- Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.
The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.
The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.
Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.
According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.
- Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.
For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.
A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.
It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.
The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.
-
Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.
-
Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.
-
Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq’s oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.
Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.
- Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq’s cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.
11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq’s fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n
12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.
In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration’s plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world. Thank you.
seriously though, that plan ROCKS!!!
this reminds me (and i’ll post this in a few more places)
has anybody ever met Cosmic Sherriff King Adam?
he’s this crazy guy that sells buttons that i’ve run into at numerous shows
anyway he goes around with a derranged look on his face (and usually a balloon in his hand) saying “Dennis Kucinich is the president of the United States!”
he isn’t the president yet, but he will be. God willing
Point 1) This sounds bold, I’m listening…
pt2)international security and peacekeeping force.
Who is this going to be? Who is going to make these forces and fund them?
Pt3) I can agree with this.
Pt4)The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.
This is a gamble… still it seems viable.
pt5)The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security.
Okay so the UN will supply a US funded peace keeping force… at the same time the US pulls all its troops and looks the “good guy” by acting ina more cooperative manner.
Pt6)This point is the crux of the plan, as I see it, so far. This will be the hardest to implement and also has the most x variables. What if the UN peace keeping force is defeated by the Sunni surge to overtake Shia rule? Are we to then send in more troops? Isn’t this the problem right now?
It is an interesting plan so far but it is making some big assumptions.
pt7) This point is a given.
pt8) This is a noble idea and feel strongly about this point, good show. Hope something like this is viable…
pt9) okay this sounds fine too.
pt10, 11, 12) I say go for it if you are able…
So basically here is another plan out of many plans to bring Iraq to a point of stability and peace. One that flows better with the popular thought of the people these days. It still calls for fighting, either way there is no way around the bloodshed. Question is will this plan lead to less bloodshed in a quicker time? I, of course, do not have any answers… and neither does this guy truthfully. To be honest what I’ve been saying in this long-winded thread is I support Bushs last ditch effort… give him his last chance… then something like this can be implemented and I think will be implemented given Bushs plan finally fails… It looks like that will happen but I guess we’ll see. At any rate I wonder if congress will go with Bushs plan.
I have now spent time posting this instead of getting ready for work… 
hahahaha… I’m sucha boner.
Fifth US chopper shot down in Iraq in 18 days.
This is just getting worse.
We have to bring in the Saudi’s, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon or this is gonna turn into a disaster for the entire region.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/07/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
thanks Booji, goldphish seems to live in a Disneyland world, AMAZING.
“let’s give Bush one more chance” laughable, but she really thinks this is the truth of Bush, that he simply wants to try again.
JESUS, please wake up. AMERICA IS RUN BY “FOR PROFIT” MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS THAT ONLY CARE ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE AND WILL KILL WHOEVER GETS IN THE WAY, PERIOD.
^YEAH, lets hold a week long hippie jam festival and take down the multinational corperations and bring the power back to the people! I know this because I went to college and my professors really opened my eyes to the faults of the corperate (and also the free and civilized worlds) methods.
People there is no need to call me names and attack my person. I’m sure you can state your argument w/o getting argry etc. I raised this topic and view points so we can have an honest, open discussion so try not to shoot motar shells at me please. You have to understand that part of me is drawing you out so I can hear your views and points. If we all just agreed on everything than what the hell would we have to talk about. So you need to go up against my different pov and we further the debate. Understand that I’m not a complete twit.
Anyway I’m looking and thinking. Booji you raise very important points. I’m beginning to think Bushs policy is not going to work. Especially in light of recent events. If he is able to carry out his policy he will run into such resistance from our side that I don’t think it will be carried out 100%. So basically what I think we are seeing is the shift from a Bush led war to a… well whatever is next in this war.
Thru this whole thing I have tried, for my part, to be open about my views and not fall into one view or the other… and I will continue to do so. I’m not the Commander in Chief so I can do that Essentially I’m interested to see where it all goes and to try to see all sides, if I can. What I’m beginning to worry about more that anything else is Iran… it seems they will use the situation for their advantage. Sometimes I wonder if this whole thing is the beginning of the end.
I’d like to address particular points in the above posts but I’m so tired right now… my mind is just not very sharp… so maybe later.
this is the kind of shit these people teach their children
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3189465304495927746&q=islam+children+propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y122h4kH5FA
Their idealism is fucked and beyond reasoning with, when I was 10 I had a bigwheel not an AK47, you want to let this kind of radical ideal to spread? The U.S is a bully? how about the father who straps bombs to his little kid and sends him to go blow himself up…really, who is right here?
you sound like an uninformed maniac, “these people” teach “their” children. The reason some muslims want dislike us so is because they love their country just as much as we do. When some muslims wake up in the morning, such as the majority of people in Saudi Arabia, they take a look at the royal family that’s in charge and they take a look at widespread unemployment and the hording of their national treasure and they think “Why are the crooks and criminals in power in my wonderful country?”, the reason is because the crimianls and crooks i.e. the royal family is being propped up by U.S. military money and weapons that’s why. same thing in egypt we give them tons of money and weapons and the egyptian people, the majority that is, don’t like the sad state of their country.Neither do the people in Iran for that matter. You see the majority of people in the muslim world DO NOT SUPPORT THE TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS THEY LIVE UNDER. But when you ask why don’t they do anything about it, remember those governments have many many weapons provided by the USA and money from us and we for the most part put these people in power as well. we put Saddam in Iraq, we supported the iran revolution which led to the current disgusting government their, same thing with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If I thought my land was being occupied I would definately fight back with whatever means neccessary, I mean come on it’s the USA ya know. I would gladly die for it. It is directly beacause of the USA’s negative and hypocritical actions over the years with all of the middle eastern countries that we have terrorists now. PERIOD. WE DREW FIRST BLOOD.
usa’s government that is, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE LARGELY UNINFORMED about these facts and should not be held accountable in my opinion for the dastardly deeds the few powerful Americans perpetuate upon the world.
I love the usa with all of my heart that is why I bring up the bad facts that have led to this current bloodshed, america is better than this, I know it.
^Good stuff. I just don’t agree with the end of your last statement, not completely anyway. The average person in this world wants only to go about their business, dig a little dirt, dance a little dance, make a little love, and smile in the face of their children, and in that sense, I believe the population of this country is not culpable for the deeds of the dastardly powerful.
But our decadent habits, implemented with a complete mindlessness of the karmic strings that they are invariably attached actually provide the power to those dastardly few who perpetrate evils upon the rest of the world. To quote one of the corporate avatars that feed into this runaway train, “we’re all connected”. The moment we open that car door to run down to the 7-11 for a pack of smokes or a gallon of milk, we empower the dastardly to wreak havoc upon the world in order to continue to allow us to do the same thing tomorrow or the next day.
The “powerful” entities of the world, the smart ones especially, derive that power on the common desires of the greatest number of people, regardless of the political system that they’re “told” is good for them. It’s been that way for thousands of years, and although the “games” (laws) that have evolved to stopgap some of the cruelties that we naturally perpetrated on one another in the process of evolution, the rich and powerful continue to wield that power independent of those laws, masked by layers of bureaucracies as in this country, or not so masked in countries ruled by kings and tyrants. The end result is pretty much the same in either case.
And our lifestyles can’t be overlooked when it comes to what’s happening to our environment either. In spite of the fact that the future of the planet is tenuous at best considering the exponential growth of the world’s populations (unless stemmed by a catostrophic event such as nuclear war, plague, meteor, or super volcano), we do very little in this country on a daily basis to conserve what natural resources we have. And I’m not talking about the evil republicans and corporate polluters. At least they’re in plain sight. More often than not, those who tallk the most about placing environmental controls on corporations, fail to make any changes in their personal lives to help the situation. It’s the “it’s always the other guys fault” syndrone.
Case in point, Phish’s last show at Coventry, or any of their shows at Limestone. A friend and I once did a loose calculation on the amount of hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere by loyal phans attending one weekend Phish festival. We used conservative estimates for starting points, car age and mechanical condition, number of people riding in each car. etc, etc, and the result was pretty disturbing. One show released something like 1.5 million tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, but who out of those fifty thousand people even stopped to consider that as a reason NOT to go? How many of those are now bitching at the Bush administration for not taking global warming seriously? We can’t have it both ways.
I’d like to believe that america is better than this, because it certainly is more comfortable to believe it. The truth is, our leaders are our fault, plain and simple. Bush, Clinton, Regan are symptoms of ourselves, and the cure for them is inside of us. If we don’t start making radical lifestyle changes, there’s really no point to blaming the powerful forces in the world for what they do anywhere.
i feel that there is no need to be in Iraq. We went into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction and failed at finding anything. Now we are try to set up democracy in one of the most corrupt parts of the world. The Sunni and shia have been fighting ever since they have been established, and we will not ever change that.
Also this is the only time in history when we have been in a war and our taxes have not been raised. This war and the politics behind it have screwed the next few generations to come
Jersey taxes are rediculous to start with… property tax is fuckin nuts