frankie's Journal: What does "sovereignty" mean?

The more I think about this, the more it outrages me: The UN and Saudi worked together with the USA and Iraq to create a peace plan. Muslim troops were offered to Bush, but he turned them down :

At one point, the Saudis proposed that Muslim forces be placed under the command of the Iraqi government. That idea won over Allawi, but not the United States. "The Americans wanted ultimate control, and that made it impossible to make this work," said the Iraqi official.

Let's mull that a while. Iraq is supposedly a sovereign nation. We all agree that the USA should have control over the defense and security of the USA. So ... who should have control over the security of Iraq? Apparently the Bush administration thinks "Iraq" is not a valid answer.

In the past few decades, when a country had a nominal government but the military took orders from another nation, the USA rightly called them puppets. So tell me, Mr Bush, what do you think sovereignty means?

Lies, damn lies, and frankie lies

[Mike Hawk]

Hmmm, first of all, what are Muslim troops? Based on the actions of some persons on behalf of "Islam" I would be unlikely to accept "help" from "Muslim troops" either. Now for the part thats the frankie lie...

Any whining about sovereignty is misplaced. The "Muslin troops" would have been under the control of the UN, not the US. Is the UN a sovereign nation now? [opinionjournal.com] Better ask John "But" Kerry. And based on how helpful the UN has been [opinionjournal.com] as a body, once again, I have to say no thanks to their help either.

90%, 50%

[GQuon]

in his 90% lie
Now, now. If you count only the coalition of countries that invaded Iraq, the 90% of casualties figure is factually correct, not a lie.
Cheney also had his facts straight in the Vice Presidential Debate with senator Edwards. He said Edwards was dead wrong, but that means both morally wrong, and thinking in a wrong way. He said it was 50% if you included the Iraqis (the figure is 50%).

I think this is a good example of a discussion were both have the facts right, but look at them in a differen

the figure is 55%

[GQuon]

It's 55% percent. Curse the anti-preview demon..
Both Edwards and Cheney did some rounding.

Let me just join Cheney's ham-fisted recommendation of FactCheck.org. They listened to my comments and corrections, which is more than either left-wing or right-wing media have done this side of the summer.

I recommend this report on how political speech is more protected than commercial speech, meaning it isn't held to truth-in-advertising standards: False Ads: There Oughtta Be A Law! Or -- Maybe Not. [factcheck.org]

Re:Lies, damn lies, and frankie lies

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The "Muslin troops" would have been under the control of the UN, not the US.

Not according to the article I read- it said they would have been under IRAQI control, not US control and not UN control- so I guess your:

Iraqis are free to fight for their own country.

Is a lie.

Re:Lies, damn lies, and frankie lies

[Mike Hawk]

Id reply, but since I have no idea what "article [you] read", I can't. Another classic "arguement" from MH. In the current article linked in JE (which is not the same as the original), it says:

The Saudis proposed that the new force work under direct UN control. But the United States and the Iraqi government balked.

"We thought that there was no system in place to allow a separate UN command structure," said the Iraqi official.

And then:

But Arab and Muslim masses largely support the Iraqi insurgen