Fortunately, Americans live in a country were impeachment is not only a possibility, but a reality. And every 4 years the opportunity is there for the citizens to vote their opinions. Do the Iraqui people have the same freedoms?
Membership and Presidency of the Security Council in 2003 Month Presidency Membership Term Ends ... February Germany 31 December 2004 ... Germany's Statements in the Security Council http://www.germany-un.org/securitycouncil.html The Sanctions Committee on Iraq Similar to its last term on the Security Council in 1995/1996, Germany has taken the chair of the Iraq-Sanctions Committee for the years 2003 and 2004. This Committee has been established by the Security Council Resolution 661/1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and is therefore known as the "661 Committee". The objective of the sanctions is not a punishment but a tool to force the Iraq regime to comply with the obligations imposed by the UN. In connection with the ceasefire agreement and Security Council resolution 687/1991, Iraq agreed to implement a number of measures that would prevent it from becoming a threat to peace and security in the region once again. Demands included to remove its weapons of mass destruction and to refrain from building up new arsenals. It was decided that the economic sanctions should be lifted when Iraq had complied with the requirements of the Security Council. Medicines and food for humanitarian purposes have always been exempted from the sanctions. more at http://www.germany-un.org/iraqsanctions.html regards wild
Byrd: Bush Gives U.S. 'Bully' Image Reuters Saturday, January 18, 2003; Page A14 Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va) criticized President Bush yesterday for giving the United States the image "of a belligerent bully," and said Bush's contrasting handling of threats posed by North Korea and Iraq revealed major flaws in his foreign policy. Byrd said Bush appeared eager to apply his doctrine of preemptive military action against less powerful countries such as Iraq, but not against countries that may pose a nuclear threat, such as North Korea. "What is the message we convey to the world if we are eager to apply a doctrine of preemption on those countries with limited ability to defend or counterattack, and yet waffle over a preemptive response to dangerous regimes with firepower to hit back?" Byrd said. "The unanticipated result of this doctrine may be to unleash a global scramble to acquire the means to deter the U.S. from unprovoked attacks," he said on the Senate floor. Bush has said the United States has the right to launch preemptive strikes against nations that have or are developing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States or its allies, which he said would justify an attack on Iraq. Byrd called that a bellicose position and said policymakers must "work to restore the image of the United States to that of strong peacekeeper instead of belligerent bully." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8488-2003Jan17.html
Paranoia, Religion & Aspirations by Tanya C. Hsu "The few who are actually opposed [to war with Sicily] were afraid of being thought unpatriotic if they voted against it, and therefore remained quiet." Thucydides on the demise of the Athenian Empire, 415.B.C. "Gob-smacked" is crude British slang for the jaw-dropping emotion many felt after the new Republican trifecta November 5th. The majority of voters faithfully believe the ominous words of President Bush because underneath the bulk of the bell curve is apathy towards politics. Americans buy anything from late night television believing that pyramid schemes will get them rich quick so why should "the Arab bogeymanâs coming" be any different? Bush has sold us on an historical achievement: War is necessary for the sake of peace. For our own good. The media also bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Aided by the anti-intellectual rants of OâReilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh they continually stoke the collective national trauma. CNN International Executive Rena Golden admitted to a "reluctance to criticize anything in a war that was obviously supported by a vast majority of the people." The vote was loud and clear: Weâre xenophobic and proud, donât care to read history, canât locate Iraq on a map, not bothered by the worst economy in 40 years, but we quiver with paranoia. In that vein, Bush is a great PR man. Faith is borne of fear. Unlike animals, we know we will die, and thus we need the comfort of an unknown. Bush will protect you from evil no matter the cost, and the Rapture will intervene and save all who believe him. Ironic that he intends bombing the Cradle of Civilization, destroying the Garden of Eden and causing a backlash in the Holy Land. Divinely inspired by a cruel and outmoded flavor of Christianity Bush is secure in an agenda that no mainstream European leader would dare attempt. They learnt a terrifying lesson sixty years ago; Germans still cannot voice their proud nationality. Silence gets you what you ask for. Even Hitler had been freely elected in 1933 warning of the threat to Germanyâs national security and the need to preemptively invade Europe. Nazi power was based upon national arrogance. The worst of mankind rules upon pure fear. This country creeps ever closer to fascism. The White House made clear that "Youâd better watch what you say, watch what you do". John Ashcroft said that government criticism was akin to "aiding and abetting the enemy". The price we pay for disagreeing with this Administration is to be labeled a traitorous anti-American. Goosestep behind and you are a patriot. "Of course the people donât want war. But after all, itâs the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and itâs always a simple matter to drag the people along⦠the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater threat." Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall, Nuremburg trials 1946. The Administrationâs interest is to deflect domestic issues and profit from weapons sales and oil, selling its soul to the devil if he contributed to the GOP. In fact, it has. In 1996, Richard Perle, Reagan Administration Defense Department, and Feith Douglas, currently the third highest-ranking Pentagon executive, clarified their archconservative view that a mini war in the Middle East required "regime changes, destabilization, and containment". Perle is now the current Chairman of the Pentagonâs Defense Policy Board and advises the Center for Security Policy, backed by arms manufacturer Soltan, his previous employer. Perle and former CIA Director James Woolsey are on the board of JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), which shares the same agenda. Dick Cheney was also on the board before assuming the Vice Presidency and prior to liquidating $30 million of Halliburton stock. In 1991, Cheney announced that the Gulf War had disarmed Iraq. He then went to business cleaning up the damage to Iraq with the man he now calls a "murderous dictator", netting $24 million in 1998 violating US laws and using off shore accounts. Donald Rumsfeld recently stated that he wouldnât cross the street to shake hands with Saddam Hussein. On the day poison gas supplied by the US was launched upon the Kurds, however, Rumsfeld was busy turning the other cheek, shaking Saddamâs hand for a photo op. The Administration agrees that "Iraq is a tactical pivot and Egypt a prize" should the US invade the Middle East, yet quietly the US sides with Iraq and Muslim nations against Europe in the UN on votes to control women rights via banning birth control. America confuses freedom with entitlement. Who are we to demand that no other nation arm itself despite being attacked for decades when we are the only nation in history to have used nuclear weapons. Twice. The US refuses to adhere to international constraints, rejecting nuclear arms agreements, environmental protectionism plans and biological weapons conventions. We have not paid UN dues for years. The United Nations was created to prevent a world monopoly, not support one. American troops are in more countries than the British Empire at its peak. In WWII, 90% of soldiers were single; today 77% are married with children, and weâre ready to send them to die "for their country". And we refuse to join the International Criminal Court lest US troops be subject to war crimes charges. America executes minorities and the mentally ill; detains on suspicion denying access to legal representation; and blindfolds, binds, and renders immobile suspected terrorists. Pre-ordained punishment prior to trial has been given the DC Snipers; we champion the right to own automatic rifles and hollow point bullets. It is the height of immorality for the President to prey upon the nationsâ sorrow after September 11th to go forth with a plan implemented long ago. Manipulating a tragedy in order to gain support for his pathological quest for revenge is madness with no afterthought. The Republicans will now win a war, rev up the economy, spin the country in to a budget surplus, return unemployment to 1.8% and guarantee the availability of social security, health care benefits and prescription drugs to the elderly. All whilst lowering taxes and bringing peace to the world. Donât fear the Arab or Muslim. Fear the new American direction. Tanya C. Hsu is British, lives in the US, and is a writer of Middle Eastern politics. She is also a staff member of Palestine Media Watch. Currently she is working on two books on the people of Palestine. She contributed above article to Media Monitors Network. http://www.mediamonitors.net/tanyachsu3.html regards wild
A pundit wanna-be from "Palestine Media Watch," working on not one but "two books on the people of Palestine" vomits up an anti-American diatribe - reciting a familiar set of leftist canards, clumsily deploying familiar propaganda tricks - and wild sees fit to paste it here? Is the paragraph about fascism in boldface because having some else repeat wild's favorite cliches is somehow supposed to lend them credence? A writer who directs insults at the entire American populace, employs derogatory anti-Christian generalizations and un-subtle anti-Jewish asides, attributes straw man arguments to her supposed antagonists, distorts or inflates factual evidence, and manipulatively selects stray quotations taken dramatically out of context, has the temerity to accuse others of using fascist tactics... She's so desperate to assemble a bill of particulars, she even works in a defense of the DC snipers and early post-9/11 responses to a TV talkshow host's ill-considered commentary. This odiously hypocritical performance is completed when she slips into the first person plural - "we champion the right..." etc. - as though she, a British citizen in the midst of an anti-American rant, has the right to speak as one of "us." What useless drivel. Of course, taking a piss in your own chair for the sake of the warm feeling isn't a habit only of leftists, but almost all of wild's posts give off the same recognizable stench.
Wow. I never thought of pissing in my own chair when I am cold to feel warm. I am going to try that next time to see if it works. Does it matter if I piss to the left or to the right for the best results? Or is the most warmth generated pissing down the middle.
Byrd: Bush Gives U.S. 'Bully' Image Reuters Saturday, January 18, 2003; Page A14 Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va) criticized President Bush yesterday for giving the United States the image "of a belligerent bully," and said Bush's contrasting handling of threats posed by North Korea and Iraq revealed major flaws in his foreign policy. DO YOU FEEL BRYD IS THE RIGHT MAN TO BE GIVING OPINIONS ABOUT "bully'???? HE WAS A CARD CARRYING member OF THE KKK ( YOU GERMANS SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR VALUE AND ETHICS SYSTEM) THIS IS THE SAME REASON I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FRENCH, German AND ITALY COWARDS STAND FOR .... BUT ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO ABOUT BRYD....IS HE THE RIGHT MAN TO BE ISSUING THESE STATEMENTS? ESPECIALLY ON MLK DAY.