Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 4/7/2006 4:15:54 AM EDT
These comments were made in Iraq, about their "militias". Taking that into account, it still seems like she means all "democracies", including our own. And here I thought the Founding Fathers believed power trickles from the citizens to the government.

"You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1746102,00.html
Iraq's interior ministry refusing to deploy US-trained police

· Plans for non-sectarian force under threat
· Rice insists that power of militias must be curbed

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Tuesday April 4, 2006
The Guardian

Iraq's interior ministry is refusing to deploy thousands of police recruits who have been trained by the US and the UK and is hiring its own men and putting them on the streets, according to western security advisers.
The move is frustrating US and British efforts to build up a non-sectarian Iraqi police force which would not be infiltrated by partisan militias.

The disclosure highlights growing US and British concern about the role of militias in sectarian killings, and their links to senior Iraqi politicians. "You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power," Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday.

"We have sent very, very strong messages repeatedly, and not just on this visit, that one of the first things ... is that there is going to be a reining in of the militias... It's got to be one of the highest priorities."
The interior ministry, which is controlled by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI), has not deployed any graduates of the civilian police assistance training team (CPATT), a joint US/UK unit, for the past three months.

The CPATT was designed to put the police on a fair footing after Saddam Hussein's 30-year dictatorship. Its goal is to train 134,000 officers by the end of the year and ensure an equitable ethnic and sectarian balance.

The ministry's refusal to use the new graduates is causing alarm. "There are concerns about the infiltration of the police by extremist groups and the coalition is right to be concerned about transparency," a western security adviser told the Guardian.

Senior ministry officials say they refuse to deploy the graduates because they have no control over the CPATT's selection process.

Sunni politicians and residents of Baghdad have claimed that the ministry supports several "death squads" which are said to be responsible for abducting and murdering hundreds of Sunnis in recent weeks.

In one incident last week, men dressed in the camouflage uniforms of police commandos drove up in three vehicles and stormed into an electrical appliances store in Mansour, a middle-class Sunni district of west Baghdad. They rounded up three young women employees and five males in a room and shot them dead.

It emerged late last year that the interior ministry has been running secret detention centres. US troops discovered two prisons in which more than 800 men and boys, mostly Sunnis, were held in shocking conditions. Under the Iraqi constitution only the ministry of justice is allowed to run prisons.

Many Sunnis now say they would rather be detained by the Americans than the Iraqi police.

No figures are available for the police's religious and ethnic make-up outside Kurdistan, partly because there is no central data base, but estimates put it at 80% Shia. Until recently the special police and commando units were 99% Shia, according to a CPATT spokesperson.

Charges that the police were becoming partisan developed after Bayan Jabr, a SCIRI leader, became interior minister last April. The SCIRI's powerful armed wing, the Badr organisation, was founded in Iran during the supreme council's 20-year exile from the Saddam Hussein regime.

According to the International Crisis Group thinktank, Mr Jabr worked with the commander of the Badr organisation and its intelligence chief to give Iraq's police and paramilitary forces a sectarian thrust.He infiltrated Badr militia members into the commando units set up in 2004 to fight the anti-occupation insurgency.

Mr Jabr has denied that commando units have been involved in murders and says criminals use police uniforms to hide their identity.

Sectarian violence continued yesterday with a car
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:18:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:41:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 4:42:24 AM EDT by bullyforyou]


i don't really know how to say this so it doesn't offend a lot of people, but i'm going to say it [as best i can] anyhow...

there are a lot of things that we here in the US have, and can utilize, that many other nations cannot deal with because they have not developed a certain level of "cultural maturity".

for example; in America, we can have lots of different religions. we've learned that no matter what someone else beilieves, it really doesn't make a damned bit of difference.

in many other parts of the world, people use small ideological differneces to justify mass killings.

though Saddam was a bastard, and i'm not supporting his actions in any way, that area of the world is not mature enough to not destroy eachother, and themselves, without an overbearing dictator lording over them.

flame-suit ON...

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 5:01:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
She is correct. There is no place for various private armies. She was not referring to individuals, but rather collectives that have formed themselves into private armies with varied interests for their masters.



Correct...

She is very much on record as supporting individuals right to keep & bear arms...

What she is speaking out against, in this case, is individual political factions having their own private armies...

How many of you would approve of the GOP & Dems having their own military wings?

I wouldn't, for sure...

But over there, this is the case - political parties maintain their own armed forces, sometimes more effectively than the (newly formed) federal government's.... Not a good situation, especially for a fledgling democracy...
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 5:35:17 AM EDT
As a rule, I take anything by The Guardian with a HUGE grain of salt.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 5:37:14 AM EDT
She's in Iraq, what do you expect her to say....."I fully support the right of the sunnis, kurds, and shiites to form private militias and enforce the law as they see fit.."
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:29:53 AM EDT
If you're compare the Iraq to the USofA, then it is true. Many areas of Iraq have various religion factions, and many of them do not tolerate people with differing views. This true not only in the Middle East but in countries around the world. You've got to come down pretty hard on those fiefdoms if democracy is going prevail. And it is going to take lots of time & money. The Dems call for a time table of withdrawl is just not realistic.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:32:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
She is correct. There is no place for various private armies. She was not referring to individuals, but rather collectives that have formed themselves into private armies with varied interests for their masters.



+1

She's talking about warlords as seen in Somolia and Liberia.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:32:26 AM EDT
Your tinfoil is showing again.

This has nothing to do with the U.S. she's talking about all the rag tag militia groups running around Iraq.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:38:24 AM EDT
While I agree with her, I'm growing weary of the insistence that a democracy be established in Iraq, as opposed to a constitutional republic. It's even worse when our own leaders continue to state that our own form of governemnt is a democracy.

Sorry, but this a peeve of mine. The two forms of government ARE different, and liberty is short lived under a democracy. That we are suggesting a democracy in Iraq is extremely frustrating, to say the least.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:41:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Your tinfoil is showing again.

This has nothing to do with the U.S. she's talking about all the rag tag militia groups running around Iraq.



+1

Fortunately, we live in a Representative Republic where it's one man, one vote instead of one man, 30 votes + 1 in the hole.

However... Dr. Rice's comment is a common theme in the Globalist community. The concept that the State is always right, and has a legitmate right to be in power.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:46:07 AM EDT
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:47:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.





That's the first time I've ever heard such a thing.

Why do you say that???
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:48:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 7:48:19 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
I was unaware that the U.S. Constitution was meant to apply to ALL democracies on the planet.

This is going to make waging war quite awkward.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:49:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.



My son believes that Venus is populated with Dinosaurs and green monkeys.



Demonstrate how she is "corupt".
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:51:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.





That's the first time I've ever heard such a thing.

Why do you say that???



Yes, why?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:51:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I was unaware that the U.S. Constitution was meant to apply to ALL democracies on the planet.

This is going to make waging war quite awkward.

no kidding.
This is a pretty fucking stupid thread.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:01:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.





That's the first time I've ever heard such a thing.

Why do you say that???



Yes, why?



I'd like to know also.

Maybe start a seperate thread for this issue.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:07:46 AM EDT
Yeah, she is so silly for thinking that having WARLORDS and PRIVATE ARMIES is a bad idea.

Dude. Get over yourself. You are not a warlord with you 10/22 and .38 here in the US!

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:10:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By shotar:
She is correct. There is no place for various private armies. She was not referring to individuals, but rather collectives that have formed themselves into private armies with varied interests for their masters.



Correct...

She is very much on record as supporting individuals right to keep & bear arms...

What she is speaking out against, in this case, is individual political factions having their own private armies...

How many of you would approve of the GOP & Dems having their own military wings?

I wouldn't, for sure...

But over there, this is the case - political parties maintain their own armed forces, sometimes more effectively than the (newly formed) federal government's.... Not a good situation, especially for a fledgling democracy...



Absolutely correct. I saw a TV interview of Condi where she stated that she whole heartedly supported the 2nd amendment. She added that when she was young, her father and neighbors patrolled their neighborhood armed with rifles and shot guns to protect their families from racists.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:40:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:43:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.



Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:45:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
I believe RICE to be one of the most corupt politians in America.



My son believes that Venus is populated with Dinosaurs and green monkeys.





Wait. It isn't?

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:47:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

How many of you would approve of the GOP & Dems having their own military wings?




Well, you can't deny it would make for interesting election years!
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:53:29 AM EDT
that dumb wench lost me after telling us that a report titled osama bin laden attacks america had nothing to do with osama bin laden or people attacking america
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:58:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
She is correct. There is no place for various private armies. She was not referring to individuals, but rather collectives that have formed themselves into private armies with varied interests for their masters.



Private armies maybe... however, we're all considered members of the unorgainzed militia. Where is the line drawn. Individual states had individual 'armies' at the time of the FFs.

I interpret Rice's comments to mean a strong central government authority must have a monopoly on power, as opposed to provisional authority coalition governments comprising of regional political factions or warlords.

However, you start to get into the philosophical concept of the separation of local and state's rights vs. a strong central authoritarian government -- of which I am not in agreement with as it stands today.

The State's Rights Reb in me is coming out again.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:58:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By skinnysarge79:
that dumb wench lost me after telling us that a report titled osama bin laden attacks america had nothing to do with osama bin laden or people attacking america



I guess you believe the liberal press.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:21:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 10:27:55 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By shotar:
She is correct. There is no place for various private armies. She was not referring to individuals, but rather collectives that have formed themselves into private armies with varied interests for their masters.



Private armies maybe... however, we're all considered members of the unorgainzed militia. Where is the line drawn. Individual states had individual 'armies' at the time of the FFs.

I interpret Rice's comments to mean a strong central government authority must have a monopoly on power, as opposed to provisional authority coalition governments comprising of regional political factions or warlords.

What's good for the US is not necessarily what is best for the Iraqis.

You must always remember:

These people wipe their asses with their hands.




However, you start to get into the philosophical concept of the separation of local and state's rights vs. a strong central authoritarian government -- of which I am not in agreement with as it stands today.

The State's Rights Reb in me is coming out again.

She's speaking to a specific audience about a specific set of groups.
Here's your "militia":
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:28:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 10:28:20 AM EDT by WS4LIF]

Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991.


Nothing more corupt then the oil industry.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:36:53 AM EDT


I don't think Condi is corrupt and I think her comments need to be contextualized more before I think she is anti-gun, but it is a disconcerting statement because that is exactly what the the .gov (whoever, repub or demos) will say if they come for our guns.

When the next gun ban comes it will be in the name of democracy and freedom.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 11:06:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 11:06:29 AM EDT by woodbutcher223308]

Originally Posted By five2one:

I don't think Condi is corrupt and I think her comments need to be contextualized more before I think she is anti-gun, but it is a disconcerting statement because that is exactly what the the .gov (whoever, repub or demos) will say if they come for our guns.

When the next gun ban comes it will be in the name of democracy and freedom.




Nah it's for the clildren.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 11:12:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:

Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991.


Nothing more corupt then the oil industry.



You base your statement on that? That's even less unfounded than much of what the liberal press puts out. Do you have any REAL proof that she is corrupt?

I doubt that you do.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 11:58:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 12:06:04 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Nothing more corupt then the oil industry.



Wow. That's stupid.

That makes her "one of the most corrupt politicians today"?

Very stupid.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 12:01:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:

Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991.


Nothing more corupt then the oil industry.



tinfoil on a little too tight?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 12:16:28 PM EDT
Hm... she is in perfect agreement with my libtard "women in politics" prof.

And here I thought that the People had a monopoly on all power and that they only delegated certain of those powers to the government.

Lets face it. The Republican Party is just as in favor of big government Centralism as the Democratic Party.

Federalism is dead.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 12:33:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Hm... she is in perfect agreement with my libtard "women in politics" prof.

And here I thought that the People had a monopoly on all power and that they only delegated certain of those powers to the government.

Lets face it. The Republican Party is just as in favor of big government Centralism as the Democratic Party.

Federalism is dead.



Just curious. Why are you taking a "women in politics" class? Got any FACTS to support your contention that Federalism is dead?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 12:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Hm... she is in perfect agreement with my libtard "women in politics" prof.

And here I thought that the People had a monopoly on all power and that they only delegated certain of those powers to the government.

Lets face it. The Republican Party is just as in favor of big government Centralism as the Democratic Party.

Federalism is dead.



Just curious. Why are you taking a "women in politics" class? Got any FACTS to support your contention that Federalism is dead?



Gender studies requirement.

You want facts to support the death of Federalism?

The Federal Government ROUTINELY intervenes in State issues totally outside of its consitutionally mandated sphere. Examples of this include the energy bill, No child left behind Act, FEMA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and much much more.

But all this is okie dokie according to my Prof. She says that ALL Federal laws trump ALL State laws because of the "Supremacy clause." And to her the Federal Government is incapable of writing a law outside its authority because she thinks it has the power to write any law it wants. In her words: "The States can only make laws that the Federal Government lets them."

The 10th amendment is just "bad law" to her.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:52:04 PM EDT
No shit.
She's a politician. Of course she thinks you should give up anything you may have that you could use to contest her power.
No politician, ever, has been honest.
To quote from the "V for Vendetta" thread-
Guy Hawkes- The only person to ever enter parlaiment with honest intentions.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:55:45 PM EDT
STUPIDEST THREAD OF THE YEAR!
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:56:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
STUPIDEST THREAD OF THE YEAR!

/\
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:56:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
STUPIDEST THREAD OF THE YEAR!

/\

/\ /\
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:57:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
STUPIDEST THREAD OF THE YEAR!

/\

/\ /\

/\ /\ /\
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:38:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
No shit.
She's a politician. Of course she thinks you should give up anything you may have that you could use to contest her power.
No politician, ever, has been honest.
To quote from the "V for Vendetta" thread-
Guy Hawkes- The only person to ever enter parlaiment with honest intentions.



Do you have anything at all to back up this bullshit when it comes to Dr. Rice?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:46:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
No shit.
She's a politician. Of course she thinks you should give up anything you may have that you could use to contest her power.
No politician, ever, has been honest.
To quote from the "V for Vendetta" thread-
Guy Hawkes- The only person to ever enter parlaiment with honest intentions.



Do you have anything at all to back up this bullshit when it comes to Dr. Rice?



Only the fact that she is a politician, a group not known for honesty. Draw your own conclusions.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:48:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 3:48:57 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By TravisM1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
No shit.
She's a politician. Of course she thinks you should give up anything you may have that you could use to contest her power.
No politician, ever, has been honest.
To quote from the "V for Vendetta" thread-
Guy Hawkes- The only person to ever enter parlaiment with honest intentions.



Do you have anything at all to back up this bullshit when it comes to Dr. Rice?



Only the fact that she is a politician, a group not known for honesty. Draw your own conclusions.



My conclusion is that you have no proof of what you say about this individual and can't back it up due to the lack of proof. You therefore resort to generalization in the mold of libtards.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:51:34 PM EDT
Yup. Im a liberal, because I dare say something against the arfcom "general conscensus".
Heaven forbid someone may disagree and point out the obvious fact that historically politicians have been dishonest.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:54:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
Yup. Im a liberal, because I dare say something against the arfcom "general conscensus".
Heaven forbid someone may disagree and point out the obvious fact that historically politicians have been dishonest.



No, because you are making accusations that you cannot verify. It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of proving what you say. Libtards like to throw shit, with no proof at all, to see how much will stick. That is their methodology and it is what you are doing in this case.

Can you PROVE anything you have said about Dr. Rice? Your "obvious fact" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just a generalization that you have yet to prove concerning this individual.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:02:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
Yup. Im a liberal, because I dare say something against the arfcom "general conscensus".
Heaven forbid someone may disagree and point out the obvious fact that historically politicians have been dishonest.



No, because you are making accusations that you cannot verify. It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of proving what you say. Libtards like to throw shit, with no proof at all, to see how much will stick. That is their methodology and it is what you are doing in this case.

Can you PROVE anything you have said about Dr. Rice? Your "obvious fact" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just a generalization that you have yet to prove concerning this individual.



My opinion. Just callin' a spade a spade (no reference to race).
Maybe I'll change my opinion when someone shows me evidence that she'll uphold Bill of Rights.
Oh, you can't? Because it hasn't happened yet?
Well, lets throw history regarding politics and politicians out the window, and have a big wet dream about what'll happen if someone gets elected.

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:44:17 PM EDT
Everybody chill.

I want to know why I should not like Condi.

Seriously.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 5:01:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TravisM1:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By TravisM1:
Yup. Im a liberal, because I dare say something against the arfcom "general conscensus".
Heaven forbid someone may disagree and point out the obvious fact that historically politicians have been dishonest.



No, because you are making accusations that you cannot verify. It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of proving what you say. Libtards like to throw shit, with no proof at all, to see how much will stick. That is their methodology and it is what you are doing in this case.

Can you PROVE anything you have said about Dr. Rice? Your "obvious fact" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just a generalization that you have yet to prove concerning this individual.



My opinion. Just callin' a spade a spade (no reference to race).
Maybe I'll change my opinion when someone shows me evidence that she'll uphold Bill of Rights.
Oh, you can't? Because it hasn't happened yet?
Well, lets throw history regarding politics and politicians out the window, and have a big wet dream about what'll happen if someone gets elected.




Your opinion? IOW, no facts. How about you showing evidence that she won't. You are making the accusation.

History of other politicians is irrelevant. You need to show something that indicates she won't. She has already spoken out about the Second Amendment and how she feels that it is absolute and is not to be tampered with.

Once again, do you have anything specific about her? If not, you are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 5:24:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 5:27:57 PM EDT by TravisM1]
I stand by my past post. Show me evidence she is trustworthy, and I may change my opinion. Until then, you waste your breath.


History of other politicians is irrelevant. You need to show something that indicates she won't. She has already spoken out about the Second Amendment and how she feels that it is absolute and is not to be tampered with.




Yeah. Just like George Bush sr said "Read my lips: No new taxes".
Funny how they seem to change their stories.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top