Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, January 05, 2007

al Zawraa Offers Something

Ref There is a radio station that is broadcasting into Iraq outlining how combatants can take up arms and defeat America.

* * *

Summary of Info At Link

Iraqi citizens have been targeted for broadcasting their views and images related to American occupation in Iraq.

Iraqis working with al Zawraa posted mobile phone images of Saddam's hanging, and the network is broadcasting cell phone images taken around Iraq.

American and Iraqi authorities have shut down the broadcast.

The pictures were originally from Iraq. The management of the operations has been transferred from Iraq to Syria; this does not mean that Syria supports or doe snot support the broadcasts, only that the management of the al Zawraa operations is not longer in Iraq.

al Zawraa has posted images of US troops getting ambushed and killed. al Zawraa also includes images and instructions how to target US troops in Iraq, methods of waging war, and how to support insurgent operations against the Americans.

The images and broadcasts include detailed instructions how to plan and execute various operations.

* * *

The US government cannot stop an implicit delegation of power, lawful under the Geneva conventions: the lawful use of force to oppose illegal force.

____ Does Central C0mmand understand that We the People may lawfully delegate to foreign fighters the power to use force against a US government that defies the laws of war?

____ Does Central C0mmand understand that combat troops in Iraq are lawfully waging warfare against an occupation seen as illegal?

* * *

The problem for the Americans is the flawed argument over why they are doing what they're doing. America argues it is waging a war against terrorism, yet warfare is terror.

America also argues that it is in opposition to extremists; yet, illegal warfare is an extreme admission that fundamental policies are flawed, and the legal arguments behind those policies are unsound; on top of the fundamental problem: The legal arguments and attempted legal discussion has failed.

* * *

America has argued for democracy, yet the lies of John Bolton -- a former US prosecutor -- shows that US leadership does not like opposing views. Bolton was behind the effort to intimidate witnesses who might have provided important information to Congress on the former Chief Justice.

America said it would bring better things for Afghanistan, but has left the Afghanis with a mess. Local fighters believe they can win.

America says it is concerned about the extremists, but refuses to work openly with Syria and Iran who oppose the same extremism.

* * *

World War II was not the same as WWI. WWI was trench warfare; WWII was multi-theater with multiple campaigns, not isolated to trenches.

Warfare evolves, but remains the same reality -- it is politics through other means.

America's leaders, when it wages war, must decide how many Americans, not just Iraqi insurgents, it is willing to let "go to the other side." Warfare does not mean that all people will support the government; but when the leadership absurdly wages imprudent combat operations, and refuses to adjust, that government cannot credibly be supported.

We the People are not required to remain attached or fixed to what is flawed, as evidenced by the 2006 elections and the legacy of Vietnam.

If America's leaders want continued support, then America needs to look at the problems of the Middle East: Israel continues to make excuses for not fully supporting a Palestinian state; and American leaders continue to prattle non-sense about Saddam's "lack of support" for Peace. Saddam openly supported recognizing Israel in the 1990s, and it is incorrect to assert the US-Israelis are on the right side of the law.

* * *

It would be appropriate for the UN General Assembly to openly discuss these issues:

___ What would be beneficial for world peace

___ Would a UN General Assembly resolution calling for the Untied States and Israel to jointly cooperate with Syria and Iran against extremism work?

___ Would Iran and Syria support Israel if Israel supported Palestine?

I think the answer is yes. The way forward is to consider the ideas that have been rejected and consider whether the original reasons for refusing those options are invalid. The options were, it appears, rejected because the US believed it could go this alone. Those options remain on the table. [ Details ]

The US during WWII worked with the USSR to oppose a common enemy: Fascism and radical extremism from Japan. The US was not 100% in favor of the USSR, but at the time the greater threat was Germany, Italy, and Japan.

In 2007, the way forward is to consider the greater threats facing the world and accept that America needs allies more than it needs enemies. As with WWII and the US-USSR cooperation, there may be compromises; as with the US cooperating with Pakistan, there have been compromises.

The US cannot credibly argue for "democracy" while it openly defies democratic processes to resolve disputes: Discussion, debate, and new solutions.

* * *

The issues going against the US government is the US government defiance of the rule of law, disingenuous interest in democracy when the products of that democracy are not consistent with the United States position.

The US has tried to go it alone. This approach hasn't worked. The US does not have enough combat forces to keep the world safe, much less America.

The world does not view the options on the table as "Work with America or be destroyed," but something different: "We shall assert power, regardless the imprudence or prudence of America's leaders."

America's leaders in the Congress cannot credibly say they are for change, but they are not willing to work with reality: Ground combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are emboldened, convinced they can win, and are not backing down.

The US leadership cannot keep rubber stamping appropriations in the name of "supporting the troops" when the policy is not consistent with reality: There are insufficient resources to prevail.

* * *

The US government decided to ignore the laws of war, inspiring others to take up arms. American citizens are not allowed to wage a lawful insurrection, rebellion, or invasion to compel the US government to assent to the rule of law.

Continued appropriations for illegal warfare is not lawful, nor a change, nor protected under Geneva.

With time the American people may realize what is unfolding: Foreign fighters are taking the political disagreement between the US government and the Construction to the battlefield.

The US government's DoJ has recklessly handled the prison abuse scandals, and not had a stellar showing on convictions. Innocent people have been detained, abused, and denied their Geneva Convention rights.

Under the laws of war, foreign fighters may lawfully engage in like retaliation against similarly placed personnel who support, implement, and refuse to stop the illegal warfare.

* * *

It may be the policy of Central C0mmand that al Zawraa cannot broadcast details of the ongoing proxy war against the US government, and it may be illegal for US citizens to directly support insurgent operations directed at illegal US government activity, but the issue on the table for Pelosi and Conyers to consider: Do you realize that the failure to hold the President to account inspires world support for additional combat losses against American troops?

The way forward, regardless whether it is war or a legal confrontation in the Senate, is the same: A confrontation.

Either the President will be confronted on the battlefield; or he will be confronted in the Senate.

The longer the House leadership refuses to confront the President, the more emboldened and legitimate the insurgents will be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

* * *

Americans may come to realize that they might have to make a choice: Between the imprudent policies of the US government, which the President, Pelosi, and Conyers jointly support; or between the needed combat operations against the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans are not allowed to lawfully support warfare; then again, the President is not lawfully permitted by the House discretion to wage illegal warfare.

* * *

Should Americans care that lawful combatants are sharing information to target the US government's illegal use of force; or acting as a check where the US government refuses to respond to requests for dialog?

The American people will have to decide whether they would like their leaders to continue waging an imprudent war, as a pretext to avoid impeachment; or confronting the President, and possibly removing some of the motivation behind the insurgency.

Either way, the choice is: A change is needed. Until the leadership chooses to confront the President, al Zawraa will continue broadcasting detailed instructions to combatants how to lawfully target and destroy American government forces and resources in Iraq: They dare to challenge abuses which Pelosi and Conyers have said, in effect, "We aren't interested in challenging."

* * *

One does not solve a problem by ignoring it; nor are legal issues resolved by pretending they do not exist. The laws of war permit foreign fighters to use all resources to oppose America, especially when America engages in war crimes. The error is to believe America, by avoiding a legal confrontation with the President, is solving a problem; however, by avoiding the legal confrontation, the US is not addressing the flawed policies which are illegally supporting war crimes. A failure to challenge the President in the court room is sending a clear signal to the world the only option is for foreign fighters to broaden their combat operations to the forum where US forces are in short supply, under siege, and on the run. The insurgency and opposition is growing faster than America can support. This is feeding off itself. The US leadership was told this in 2002, but ignored the warnings.

When given a chance between solutions and chaos, America chose disaster; when given a choice between dialog and combat, America chose sustained combat losses. When given a choice between leadership and imprudence, the new leaders rested on their legacy of prudence, but gave the American people imprudence. When given a chance to assert the rule of law and hold leaders to account, America chose to avoid a legal confrontation, and were forced to face the effects of that illegal activity: Sustained reciprocal attacks which similarly violated the same laws of war the Americans violated.

The same people who warned you in June 2001 of the upcoming events are telling you the same: There is a problem, and you need to pay attention to it. Details: posted 14 June 2001 04:20 PM: The Latin text confirms the quote and the Tacitus quote.

There are solutions, and they are not a choice between American defeat and American lawlessness. Other nations have interests which the US can work with, instead American chooses to put its self-interests before all others, and then wonders why others are daring to put the United States second.

Simple answer: America isn't winning. That's not victory, nor a strategy, but blind faith in the "call for prudence" without the appropriate adjustment to prudently do what is needed:

- Work with other nations
- Set aside differences
- Focus on common goals
- Look at a larger solution
- Consider a new forum for resolving this issue
- Work with the participants in a larger, newer forum

* * *

The US could work with the Russians and Chinese to develop an export market in Africa, and provide export markets and places for the oppressed people of the world to work. [ Ref: kw ="A Marshall Plan for Africa without the catalyst of a world war" ]

Much time and money has been wasted in Iraq that could have been put to good use in Afghanistan and Africa.

You were told this before Sept 2001, in June 2001. You didn't listen.

Do you require sustained combat losses to remind you that you didn't listen when you had the chance?

If you choose to pretend nobody told you, do not wonder why al Zawraa continues to broadcast detailed instructions: They are on the right side of history; and Americans refuse to solve problems when they are handed solutions on a plate.

al Zawraa will continue as long as Pelosi and Conyers pretend that they do not have a legal confrontation with the President. al Zawraa is doing what should be done in the Senate: Confronting imprudent policy. al Zawraa and the world do not care about the 2008 election; they care about today, unlike Pelosi and Conyers, who talk about prudence while being imprudent about reality.

The election is over. The mandate is clear: Bring prudence, not talk of prudence, but the same imprudence.

Leaders who may have raised campaign funds for their DNC allies may have a legacy warranting confidence in their leadership; but these are not issues of elections. These are issues of combat, outside the expertise of the Speaker. Someone is an expert in one political forum should not deceive themselves to believe that they are an expert on all other forums, especially when prudence is asserted, not demonstrated.

The President, Addington, and Gonzalez have shown themselves incompetent at facing combat reality and fully ensuring the Geneva Conventions were respected. Just as the lawyers for the White House have failed, thereby inspiring combatants to commit lawful-reciprocal breaches of Geneva, so to – does it appear – that the DNC leadership is mistaking political success as the excuse that will inspire Americans to believe they can effectively oversee a flawed combat policy.

Pelosi is not an expert in the profession of arms. She is an expert in politics and is the most powerful person in the US House. Political success at an election is not a mandate to talk about change, while deferring to Executive Branch personnel who have gotten it wrong.

No one should look at Pelosi as having a magic, silver bullet that will address the legal, military, and political issues related to the Iraqi insurgency and problems in Afghanistan.

If you want a solution, the way forward is to learn the example of FDR; put aside your bickering with the Iranians and Syrians; work with the Russians and Chinese to create a viable export market in Africa; and do what Saddam said could be done – compel Israel, through the lawful threat of force, to agree to a just settlement for the Palestinians.

America and the Pakistanis compromised. No one is asking for injustice for Israel, but they are asking for a reasonable solution to an issue America and Israel have jointly communicated to the world: “Our way, or nothing.”

al Zawraa sends a clear signal: If you want nothing, you will get nothing.

Until America leadership agrees it would rather have marginal peace, it will have extremist war. There is no reason to fuel the confrontation with the Russians and Chinese through their proxies in Syria and Iran; the way forward is to accept that America is not alone, but can find a joint solution with all nations by developing Africa, and compelling Israel to accept it has overstayed the worlds patience, and that Israel should be happy it has not been destroyed, as America.

* * *

The issues and arguments against the Iraq war, and concerns about the lack of WMD evidence was not known only to Congress. [ Ref

Pelosi cannot credibly claim she is being prudent in all situations, especially when her arguments are unsound and invalid.

Prudence requires a decision to be prudent, not rest on an irrelevant history of prudence in one forum as a basis for confidence that all assertions are prudent in all other forums.

Pelosi is outside her expertise when asserting the prudence of inaction which imprudently emboldens foreign fighters to expand combat operations against America.

* * *

Time for the world to realize: America’s leaders are not competent. The solutions have been outlined, they refuse to listen, and despite being backed into a corner, they refuse to cooperate. They should not be surprised why al Zawraa is telling people how to do what the American Congress refuses to do: Impose lawful justice.

If America will not confront the President in the Senate, America has sent a clear signal – it would like to be confronted on the battlefield. al Zawraa remains ready to support what America implicitly prefers: Confrontation on the battlefield.

The world is not required to cooperate with those who are imprudent, whether they are located in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wandering the halls of Congress dreaming of what might happen in 2008. Today is 2007, America has run out of options, and the world is content to let America dig itself deeper in this hole.


These are the links you have been given and the summary points:

Ref It is possible to apply the same analysis to Pelosi's arguments in 2007 as was done against the President's rationale for war. Pelosi is not being prudent, especially on matters related to combat operations.

Ref The solutions are not new or novel. Before the events unfolded, you were given, but rejected solutions.

Ref Rejected ideas should be reconsidered.

Ref You were told of the risks, potential problem, and a solution well before Sept 2001, but you chose inaction.

Ref You were warned of what the President would do, but you have pretended nothing can be done.

Ref: You were warned of the agreement by some to not do what they should because they derived another benefit, to be understood.

This is all linked to the US Constitution: Prudent use, control, and checking of power. Those who refuse to assert their oath and check power, are illegally assenting to the imprudent abuse of power which may spread worldwide. The laws of war, whether the US accepts them or recognizes them is irrelevant -- permit other people to wage war when America's leadership defies prudence in the Senate and court of law.

It is an error to believe that lawyers and politicians can manage a war. They have failed and it is imprudent to trust politicians and lawyers when they are complicit with agreements to not do what they should.

al Zawraa and the Taliban are not going away, but doing what America's leaders of 1776 did: Standing up for themselves.

It is a ruse to assert al Zawraa and the Taliban were behind Sept 2001. They way forward is to focus on the real problem: Imprudent application of power against the wrong enemy; and the leadership which enables in 2007 this imprudence to continue: The US government.

There is a solution. It requires change; not talking about change, but then assenting to imprudent use of American power and absurd excuses not to assert power against those who defy the US Constitution.

Consider what you have been given, and ask:

____ Are you going to ignore the warnings again?

____ Will you miss the message of al Zawraa?

____ Will you fail to see there is a solution?

If you listen, and stop taking things personally, you will see the solution. If you pretend you are being prudent, while imprudently ignoring reality, you will lose.

This is the power of the rule of law and the US Constitution. It shall prevail through voluntary consent; oath; proxy; or lawful, direct combat operations against those who defy the rule of law. They wished this.

Hoc Voluerunt !