[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, none wrote:
> Since when does seperating church and state translate to the state
> banning religious expressions that are simply choices in dress?

I hate to ask this, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Are you talking about keeping people from wearing miniature depictions of
inhuman torture and death at work in public agencies?

> This business about trying to force people to see women doctors is quite
> astounding too I might add.  He's asking to get every frenchman against
> him ;-) What is he hoping to do, spread some love around or something?

Ever heard of context?  Who is "he"?

> To think that there are some who want the French and German government
> involved with Iraq now is scary.

Right, you have to be a rogue terrorist state in order to profiteer in
your imperial domain.  If you don't do the killin', you can't do the
exploitin'.

We wouldn't want to get anyone in there that has a reasonable idea of how
workers should be treated or anything.

> I don't care much for the whole International court concept either that
> was pushed on Bill Moyers.  It's curious that a court selected through
> some unclear procedure is purported to be International.

The procedure is quite clear.  They have a well-defined process.

And if you don't have an international court of justice, you have war.
There must be a civil place to resolve grievances outside a particular
nation's bias.

The State Department's legal analysis of the ICJ (International Court of
Justice) included a statement of the following (not verbatim... can't find
the original report right now -- this was during the Reagan administration
when the Court admonished the U.S. for war crimes against the people of
Nicaragua):  "[W]e cannot count on members of the United Nation to follow
our opinion.... The United States will make its own determination on how
to deal with issues that effect its interests."

You, Michael, in particular, should be interested to note that the Pope
cited the United States bombing Iraq and the Sudan as criminal aggression.

> What scares me about Iraq is that a similar government to what was
> removed could establish after the International presence is gone.

It's called democracy.  It's not your business to tell other people how to
run their country.

In fact, you're only assuring a government even MORE hostile to the United
States will take control after this brutal occupation ends.

> The concept of mercy essential to human rights must be alien in a nation
> where most do not see O come O come Emmanuel as a valid description of
> God.  As much as a trial of Saddham is needed, a de Baathing of Iraq
> probably needs to take place too.  I think our nation's distrust of the
> U.N. is understandable, but can we help in the establishment of an Iraq
> that will usher in a safer U.S. relationship with the Middle East?  It
> seems that human rights are more of a Christian idea than a secular one.
> Don't tell Chirac that though, he might try to secularize you!

The best way to assure a Middle East that with a "safer U.S. relationship"
would be to end aggression, help (along with the United Nations) run a
fair, safe, election for a council of leaders to shape the new nation in
whatever image they choose, leave whatever's left of the US$87 Billion
appropriated by Congress for the task and walk away with the assurance
that our government will continue to recognize the sovereignty of their
nation and legitimacy of their government regardless of whether or not
their national policies complement ours.

No more occupation, no more bombing, no more blockades.

Show them respect instead of the barrel of a 50mm gun.

And by all means, keep foreign transnational corporations OUT of the
rebuilding process.  That is only going to turn Iraq into a slave state
for the United States and Britain.

> Giving Saddham a fair trial is a big challenge for Iraq.

...especially considering they have no legal system of their own anymore
and anything they do put together will be built by the United States
(under the guise of the "coalition") to serve its own interests.

> Hopefully this trial will help Iraqis move forward.  Hopefully things
> aren't moving too fast, perhaps pressure form the not so anti bush not
> so anti Iraq War media is softening the administration's will to stay in
> Iraq till the nation is stabilized.

Well, they wouldn't have to wait for it to stabilize if they hadn't
destabilized it in the first place.

Do not forget that Reagan's people (many of them even more prominent in
Bush's administration -- criminals like John Poindexter) were responsible
for helping Saddam overthrow the government of Iraq in order to stoke the
fires of war with Iran.  This is all just one long continuation of the
Iran-Contra affair.  That criminal system is still in operation and
today's occupation of Iraq is just one more step in that plan.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org