Allawi's Speech to Congress

[amicus]

Allawi’s Speech to Congress
by Amicus



Called the Winston Churchill of modern Iraq, the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke before a joint session of the United States Congress, Thursday, September 23, 2004.

He received a warm but clearly partisan response as he profusely thanked the American people and the coalition of nations that have invested men, money and materials to the cause of Iraqi freedom. The speech was interrupted several times by standing ovations from the combined members of the House and Senate.

Allawi spoke of accelerating success in providing the 27 million people of his country with schools, medical clinics and a rebuilt infrastructure following decades of neglect during the reign of Saddam Hussein.

He further stated that 15 of the 18 provinces in the country could hold elections tomorrow and that the scheduled national elections would take place, ‘January next’, as planned.

Allawi made it clear that there would be no negotiations with terrorists and that the Iraqi people are working in concert to join the democracies of the free world.

The overall optimistic tone of the speech was in stark contrast to most media coverage presented to the American public.

Political response to Allawi’s speech seems to be dividing along partisan lines following the rhetoric of the Presidential campaign in the United States.



(at a press conference following the speech, Democrat Presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry expressed near total disagreement with the content of Prime Minister Allawi's presentation.)

 

[GingerV]

Allawi’s Speech to Congress
by Amicus



Called the Winston Churchill of modern Iraq,

Who on earth calls him that?

G

 

[killallhippies]

Re: Re: Allawi's Speech to Congress

Who on earth calls him that?

G

that amicus person. also, morons.

 

[Shock Chick]

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/sign/1/sign38.gif

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Allawi's Speech to Congress

that amicus person. also, morons.

Kill, you come along at the most appropriate times. "that amicus person" - Ah ha ha.

Perdita

 

[amicus]

The lack of response does not surprise me; only 19 of 49 Democrat Senators attended the joint session of Congress and those that did mainly sat on their hands.

There is another matter concerning the Kerry campaign, the DNC and the Democrat Party in general that has become troubling to many, including myself.

It is one thing, during a campaign or not, to have opposition to the party in power. It is what a two party system is all about.

However...the rhetoric of the Kerry campaign, the rabid opposition to the war on terror being conducted in Iraq and elsewhere, borders on aiding and abetting the enemy.

The implication that a Kerry presidency would pull back from commitments made, would weaken the resolve of the coalition of 30 plus nations in the war on terror and reshuffled the entire foriegn policy of the United States, is a dangerous path to take.

It is my opinion that if the Kerry campaign continues on that tack, that this election will be the most one-sided landslide in recent history, with the Democrat party perhaps taking only Massachussetts...a further gain in the House and Senate and control of the Supreme Court for the next decade.

There have been bitter and divisive campaigns before, but this one seems intended to divide the nation along lines that are seldom challenged.

I have stated before, that this may signal the demise of the left liberal democrat party in America...what will rise in its stead will be interesting to see....


amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What kind of response do you expect? Allawi came to the UN and said what the US wanted to hear. What' did you expect him to say? The truth?

The truth is that we've turned Iraq into the world's greatest terrorist training camp. They've just had the bloodiest month there since the war began, and everyone except the adminstration knows that things are getting worse there, not better. There are more than half a dozen major cities there where are troops just cannot go. We've ceded them to the enemy, and we're losing more all the time. Allawi's already talked about skipping these cities in the upcoming election, an idea that Sen Biden compared to holding US elections without New York, California or Ohio.

And if we're making predictions, I'll make mine: The War on Terror is over. The attacks of 9/11 were a terrible tragedy but they were an anomoly, a sucker punch, and there's no more enemy to fight, although we are doing our damndest to train more in Iraq.

The War on Terror has become nothing but a political device, an Orwellian tool to maintain order and compliance and keep the administration in power and personally, I'll can;t wait for people to wake up and see that it's over. I'm sick of living in a constant state of government-engendered fear and alarm. This isn't the America I know. It's a small and frightened place. We're better than this.

---dr.M.

 

[Edward Teach]

What kind of response do you expect? Allawi came to the UN and said what the US wanted to hear. What' did you expect him to say? The truth?

The truth is that we've turned Iraq into the world's greatest terrorist training camp. They've just had the bloodiest month there since the war began, and everyone except the adminstration knows that things are getting worse there, not better. There are more than half a dozen major cities there where are troops just cannot go. We've ceded them to the enemy, and we're losing more all the time. Allawi's already talked about skipping these cities in the upcoming election, an idea that Sen Biden compared to holding US elections without New York, California or Ohio.

And if we're making predictions, I'll make mine: The War on Terror is over. The attacks of 9/11 were a terrible tragedy but they were an anomoly, a sucker punch, and there's no more enemy to fight, although we are doing our damndest to train more in Iraq.

The War on Terror has become nothing but a political device, an Orwellian tool to maintain order and compliance and keep the administration in power and personally, I'll can;t wait for people to wake up and see that it's over. I'm sick of living in a constant state of government-engendered fear and alarm. This isn't the America I know. It's a small and frightened place. We're better than this.

---dr.M.

What Zoot said.

Ed

 

[amicus]

There were people like Dr. Mab in England and around the world in the 1930's...."Let Hitler have Poland...then the Nazi's will stop when they get land back they claim was once theirs..."

Lord Haw Haw...comes to mind...and I should research that before I post it...memory....sighs....

However, there were those who said, 'Let Saddam have Kuwait, after all, they will stop when they get back land they claim was once theirs..."

Well...we...the world...once burned, twice shy, did not allow Saddam Hussein to keep Kuwait.

If 9/11 was a 'sucker punch', I suppose the first attack on the WTC was one also...and Bali...and Spain and the continuing Muslim insurgencies in the Philippines and Indonesia and the terrible recent Russian tragedy....all sucker punches? BS

Pacifists, anti-war isolationists and the like have always been with us and perhaps always will be. I strive to find a purpose for their existence and find none.

50 million human lives were lost in WW2. Had the civilized world had the foresight and the courage to intervene in Germany in the early 1930's, the cost would have been much lower.

Islam like National Socialism, set out to rule the world, to impose their way of life on all they can conquer.

Had Hitler attacked New York City in 1934...a different scenario would have ensued.

Islam, be it Afchanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran..et al, made a huge mistake on 9/11.

The French and the Spanish and thr Russians were cowards in the 1930's and they are again in the 21st century in the face of a new onslaught of evil in the world.

Iran is probably the next to take center stage. The Israeli's just bought a huge amount of 'Smart weapons' from the US. They will not tolerate a nuclear or biological threat from the Iranians or any one else within range in the middle east.

We need gadfly's, Dr. Mab...keep up the good work...

amicus...

 

[Pure]

//a Kerry presidency would pull back from commitments made, would weaken the resolve of the coalition of 30 plus nations in the war on terror //

amicus is quite the comedian. is vanuatu among the 30?

allawi's an old CIA front man who takes it up the ass from Bush Sr. every time they can get together.

 

[amicus]

deleted....

 

[thebullet]

Amicus said:

Had the civilized world had the foresight and the courage to intervene in Germany in the early 1930's, the cost would have been much lower.

Geez, Amicus, I would have thought that Hitler was one of your personal heros. And here you are bemoaning the world's lack of intervention in pre-WW2 Germany. Go figure.

Amicus, it turns out that I did my Senior Thesis on the American Right prior to WW II. Guess, what, Amicus. YOU would have been at the forefront of the pro-Nazi movement in this country. The America First Committee and a whole bunch of fellow-travelers such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburgh (all of them from the far Right of American politics) fought to keep America out of the war while quietly admiring (and supporting) the Nazi form of government.

Amicus, people are not as gullible as you think. Sadaam wasn't Hitler. He was a two-bit tyrant and events have shown that he had given up whatever dreams of conquest he may have held at one time. There were NO wmd's. Why do you insist on comparing a little nothing like Sadaam to Hitler? I can guess it is because it validates the ridiculous war we've waged in Iraq, while ignoring Al Queda.

Don't you think it a bit odd that Bush found it necessary to attack a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11? You don't suppose that OIL had anything to do with it, do you?

Amicus you are just another fool that is willing to let the Bush administration lead you around by your nose. I know that you will call me a collectivist and a Socialist for opposing the war in Iraq. That is your knee-jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with your incredibilly strange opinions.

I favor war on terrorists. I supported the war in Afghanistan (by the way, Amicus, that's how you spell it!). But the war in Iraq has been a grevious waste of human life (both American and Iraqi - though that may mean nothing to you) and of American resources. Don't try to tell me that it is a blow to terrorism, because that is patently a lie.

Sadaam was too much the tyrant to share his rule with terrorists like Al Queda. By bringing Sadaam down, by making enemies of most of that country's citizens due to our criminal lack of planning for post-war Iraq, we have created an incubator for terrorists. We call them terrorists but they consider themselves freedom fighters. And who are we to disagree?

They fight to rid their country of foreign invaders. (That's US, Amicus.) They consider themselves insurgents, but we call them terrorists. Funny, isn't it, how language can establish an agenda?

And you, Amicus, you buy into the whole Bush Administration concept that we are liberating these people. THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ DON"T WANT TO BE LIBERATED!!! At least not the way we are doing it! We wanted to create a little colony in Iraq, installing our own people (like the CIA's Alawi) and making sure that we get cheap oil while screwing Europe out of the Iraqi oil pie.


Too late. It's too late now, Amicus. We've fucked up the war in Iraq due to the Bush Administration's total incompetance. Explain to me that that isn't true, Amicus. They had these plans of Middle East conquest, these plans to lock up Middle East oil reserves for the Texas oil companies that are Bush's top supporters. But they FUCKED IT ALL UP!!!!

These little people we have entrusted our country's future to are incapable of governing properly. Their arrogance precludes proper planning and doing the leg work necessary to insure that their grandious plans of conquest actually work.

Geez, what a bunch of losers we have governing our country. And yet the Amicus's of the world close their eyes to reality and blithely believe the lies that spew from the administration's spokespeople. All is well. We are winning the war. Iraq is at last free. And yadda yadda yadda.

 

[bloodsimple]

A slightly different perspective from the UK, from someone who nealry died twice at the hands of terrorists -

I presume amicus et al would have liked our response to the long campaign of political terrorism by Irish republicans to have been thus -

1 Decry the IRA as leaders of a new breed of international terrorists, and implore nations who have nothing to do with the conflict to become involved

2 Invade the Republic of Ireland, because they "harbour terrorists" and have "weapons of mass destruction"

3 Involve the US in said invasion

4 Carry out human rights abuses on a massive scale, imprison several hundred Irish people on Gibralter without trial, access to lawyers or just cause, and arrange dozens of non-competitive contracts to rebuild Ireland to cronies of the Prime Minister

5 Insist everything is going great and the Irish are really grateful.

6 Attack the country responsible for the funding and political support of these terrorists (BTW - that would be your country amicus - remember NORAID?)

I find it simply staggering that people seem to have accepted that Bush and Blair lied about taking their countires to war, leading to the killing of thousands of people. Opposing human rights abuses (we're supposed to have the moral high ground, remember?), and wishing to see politicians at least attempt to tell the truth, is not the same as cheering on terrorists. Since the majority of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq, I would suggest the biggest problem is not Islamic fundamentalism, or Halliburton, but ignorance.

Frankly, the US didn't give a shit about terrorism until it happened in New York. Three thousand people died in Northern Ireland, ETA killed hundreds in Spain, so did the Shining Path in Peru, the US ignored Baader Meinhoff (oops spelling?) and the Red Brigade, and countless other terrorist atrocities throughout the world. It stood by when Pol Pot murdered millions, and again in Rwanda. This may explain why the world finds Bush's zeal to "combat those terrorist folks" hard to believe and even harder to stomach.

Dr Mab is right - September 11th was a small bunch of lunatics, "armed" with "weapons" we could all buy at K-Mart, taking advantage of pathetic airport security, government complacency, and a leadership looking for a defining value to a failing administration.

Think Bush is your "war president"? Look at the footage of him after the first tower had been hit (going in to a school for a photo op anyway, while people were falling to their death), and then again after the second tower was hit (sitting there trying to read a children's book, because no-one was telling him what to do).

Terrorism is only ever defeated by the following -

1 Subject to very discrete changes, people go about their lives as normal. Terrorists love disruption and over-reaction.

2 Serious work on intelligence systems, to gradually uncover the networks and relationships underpinning the terrorist group. Nothing else finishes terrorists.

3 Addressing the political and economic problems that fostered the extremism to begin with. For the US, this means Palestine, whether it costs a few votes at home or not.

Those three things led to the end of violence (almost) in Northern Ireland, and unless or until the US realises that and practises it in the Middle East, it will always be viewed as an arrogant bully with no understanding of other countries' affairs.

 

[amicus]

bullet...bloodsimple....

..."Frankly, the US didn't give a shit about terrorism until it happened in New York...."


In view of the almost total anti-US, anti-Bush nature of both posts, in slightly different ways...I was left almost wordless and considered not even responding as I sense there really is no point, nothing that can be said....

Not even sure where to begin....The Irish/English thing is Catholic/Protestant...is it not? Is not part of Irelands legacy a collaboration with Nazi Germany, a remembrance that stains relationships yet today? France/Vichy Spain/Neutral Portugal/neutral Italy/fascist Greeks/Communist...

Since few on this forum choose to support and defend either the past or present of the United States of America...then by default, it falls to me.

With apologies to Cloudy, and others, I am sure...the criticism of the United States goes back to the original colonies and how Americans brutally decimated an entire race of people, the so called, 'native americans'

I for one, make no apologies, in general, for the history of the conquest of North America and the pacification of a primitive people who wished to remain primitive in the face of a more sophistcated society.

Althought one cannnot really consider the '500 tribes' one nation or one people, one can view that conflict as as a war between two peoples. Usually a war is won or lost and to the victor go the spoils...as the saying goes.

To modern sensibilities, the treatment of the conquered native americans is cruel and inhuman...and in many cases...it was.

Throughout human history, 'ethnic cleansing'... genocide has been a part of warfare and conquest.

When native americans engaged in tribal warfare, the victor eliminated all the men and boys and kept only the women of child bearing age. They did so to maintain and expand their own view of life and to eliminate any threats that might exist if the men and boy children were allowed to live.

The early American Colonists, for perhaps the first time in human history changed that ancient procedure. While it may not suit you to hear this said, the United States did not totally eliminate the defeated Indian nations. Within the realm of the possible, given the time and the circumstances, preserving a portion of the culture of the native peoples, on reservations and on protected lands, as flawed as it was, is unique in human history.

This does not begin to address the hatred of the United States as expressed by the two prior posters, but perhaps it is a beginning to refute those to whom the United States looms as an evil force in past and current events.

As I have said before, I do not give a blanket approval to all things done by the United States of America. There is much I disapprove of and much for which I feel no pride.

However, that caveat being provided; I firmly support the total ethical, moral, and philosophical foundations, expressed in the founding documents of this nation.

With acknowledged arrogance, I personally view much of the rest of the world as ignorant, backwards, primitive and not qualified to be called part of the 21st Century.

Had the United States not come to the aid of Europe in both world wars, resisted the Soviet Union and China and the expansionism of Communism world wide...this world would have an entirely different future than the one it now enjoys.

While most of the world looks to the primitive/ignorant past to maintain the obscenity of theocracies, be it Muslim/Christian/Protestant/Catholic/Buddhist...et al.... The United States rejects the imposition of any religion or other 'faith based' mind set (socialism/communism'fascism) upon its people.

If by some quirk of fate, the Muslim hordes erupt once again into Europe and the Near East...the United States will, once again, sighs...come bail your sorry pacifist asses out of oblivion once again.

USA! USA! USA!

In your face, MO FO!


and Bite me! also....


Amicus the ugly american....


(Oh, by the way, I usually leave at least one mispelling in each post for the assholes that have insufficent intelligence to critique anything else....)

 

[thebullet]

Amicus the ugly:

In view of the almost total anti-US, anti-Bush nature of both posts, ...

Me, anti-Bush? You Betcha
Me, anti-American? Fuck You Asshole

Have you no balls, Amicus? You repeatedly accuse me of collectivism, socialism, anti-Americanism, supporting socialized medicine; all without a single reference to prove your case. Come on, Amicus. I've got dozens of stories posted to Literotica, I've posted close to 200 times on the bulletin board. Where is your proof?

You are like all proto-Nazis. You paint everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush, claim you favor individual freedom when in fact what you fear most is freedom of speech.

According to Amicus:

The United States rejects the imposition of any religion or other 'faith based' mind set (socialism/communism'fascism) upon its people.

Uh, Amicus, dear boy, where did you get the term "faith based"? Yes, you pathetic fool, you got it from the Bush Administration that is even now trying to buy the votes of fundametalist right wing religious fanatics by moving this country towards an established religion. They belittle global warming as 'bad science' while believing that creationism is 'good science'. In Congress the neocons are trying to make it illegal to object to the use of the term "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Bush continues to push to include "faith based" organizations in various funding schemes.

It is people like you, Amicus and your neocon fellow travelers who would destroy American democracy by supporting this vile administration.

Amicus, I recommend you read Robert A. Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 or Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale to see where we are headed in this country.

But then, maybe that's exactly what you want.

 

[bloodsimple]

amicus,

I'm fully aware from previous posts that you're full of crap, so Iwon't attempt to argue with your other idiotic ramblings, as you're clearly a lost cause. Cloudy is more than capable of showing your lack of brains on the Native American subject, and bullet can defend himself.

On the subject of Northern Ireland, you exhibit 1% knowledge, 99% assumption. It is nothing to do with Eire's stance in WW2, which I understand was the same as Sweden's and a host of other countries. Had you any real knowledge, you would have known that much of the IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and the UK was funded and supported via the Republic of Ireland, and terrorists often were based in Eire and merely crossed the border to commit terrorist acts. Many arms caches (real arms, ready to be used, not items from a supermarket that could be made into something if you really tried, like Iraq) were found south of the border.

The conflict divided along religious lines, but this was exacerbated in the period leading up to the 1970s by Protestant domination of key economic and political institutions in Northern Ireland. The conflict was often aided, and significantly funded, by American politicians who actively fund-raised so that the IRA could bomb, kill and maim innocent people. These people were doing dangerous things like shopping, drinking in a bar or, like me, going to work. Noraid funded the death and mutilation of the very people you now expect to die alongside your troops in Iraq "fighting terrorism" - are you too dim to see the irony and hypocrisy in that? Noraid contributed to the death of British people - see Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy, among others.

Try using your feeble imagination to look at the Irish conflict with the same jaundiced eye that Bush, Rumsfeldt and others bring to Iraq. Then you might just see what I'm talking about.

British governments were not blameless in this - they also colluded illegally with Loyalist paramilitary. But I hope you can see the idiocy of attempting to apply Bush's approach to the Irish conflict, which shows up the inadequacies of the Bush regime for what they are.

There is nothing anti-American about wanting that country, which does so many things well, to avoid creating a militant Islam backlash by thoughtless, arrogant and ill-prepared attacks which have no basis in counter-terrorism. Read my piece again to see how real terrorism can be countered - it isn't by invading countries to secure fat oil contracts for your buddies, and allowing thousands of people (including Americans) to die so that you can do so.

How many contracts has Halliburton been awarded without competitive tendering taking place? Any Senators with kids risking their lives over there? Thought not.