+menu-


  • Category Archives Accountable Government 2016
  • Addressing Bush’s “New World” Dis-Order

    Addressing Bush’s “New World” Dis-Order

    Why American Citizens are VOTING FOR TRUMP and dumping the establishments politicians right and left.

    Full unedited  text

    9/11, 1990 President George H. W. Bush’s  New World Order Address

    Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (September 11, 1990 …

    millercenter.org/president/bush/speeches/speech-3425

    Transcript

    Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank you very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2d, following negotiations and promises by Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. IT WAS THEN THAT I DECIDED TO ACT TO CHECK THAT AGGRESSION.
    At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they’re doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment’s notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they’re brave, they’re well-trained, and dedicated.
    A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, “I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.” Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Powell; the Chiefs here tonight; our commander in the Persian Gulf, General Schwartzkopf; and the men and women of the Department of Defense. What a magnificent job you all are doing. And thank you very, very much from a grateful people. I wish I could say that their work is done. But we all know it’s not.
    So, if there ever was a time to put country before self and patriotism before party, the time is now. And let me thank all Americans, especially those here in this Chamber tonight, for your support for our armed forces and for their mission. That support will be even more important in the days to come. So, tonight I want to talk to you about what’s at stake—what we must do together to defend civilized values around the world and maintain our economic strength at home.
    Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected. These goals are not ours alone. They’ve been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world.
    As you know, I’ve just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev. And I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq’s threat to peace. Let me quote: “We are united in the belief that Iraq’s aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.” Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun.
    We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: a new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
    The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests—and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law—and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression—and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.
    Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth. We do not exaggerate. Nor do we exaggerate when we say Saddam Hussein will fail. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors—neighbors who control the lion’s share of the world’s remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.
    Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability. Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this fundamental truth. From the outset, acting hand in hand with others, we’ve sought to fashion the broadest possible international response to Iraq’s aggression. The level of world cooperation and condemnation of Iraq is unprecedented. Armed forces from countries spanning four continents are there at the request of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to deter and, if need be, to defend against attack. Moslems and non-Moslems, Arabs and non-Arabs, soldiers from many nations stand shoulder to shoulder, resolute against Saddam Hussein’s ambitions.
    We can now point to five United Nations Security Council resolutions that condemn Iraq’s aggression. They call for Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government, and categorically reject Iraq’s cynical and self-serving attempt to annex Kuwait. Finally, the United Nations has demanded the release of all foreign nationals held hostage against their will and in contravention of international law. It is a mockery of human decency to call these people “guests.” They are hostages, and the whole world knows it.
    Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a dependable ally, said it all: “We do not bargain over hostages. We will not stoop to the level of using human beings as bargaining chips ever.” Of course, of course, our hearts go out to the hostages and to their families. But our policy cannot change, and it will not change. America and the world will not be blackmailed by this ruthless policy.
    We’re now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. We owe much to the outstanding leadership of Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar. The United Nations is backing up its words with action. The Security Council has imposed mandatory economic sanctions on Iraq, designed to force Iraq to relinquish the spoils of its illegal conquest. The Security Council has also taken the decisive step of authorizing the use of all means necessary to ensure compliance with these sanctions. Together with our friends and allies, ships of the United States Navy are today patrolling Mideast waters. They’ve already intercepted more than 700 ships to enforce the sanctions. Three regional leaders I spoke with just yesterday told me that these sanctions are working. Iraq is feeling the heat. We continue to hope that Iraq’s leaders will recalculate just what their aggression has cost them. They are cut off from world trade, unable to sell their oil. And only a tiny fraction of goods gets through.
    The communique with President Gorbachev made mention of what happens when the embargo is so effective that children of Iraq literally need milk or the sick truly need medicine. Then, under strict international supervision that guarantees the proper destination, then food will be permitted.
    At home, the material cost of our leadership can be steep. That’s why Secretary of State Baker and Treasury Secretary Brady have met with many world leaders to underscore that the burden of this collective effort must be shared. We are prepared to do our share and more to help carry that load; we insist that others do their share as well.
    The response of most of our friends and allies has been good. To help defray costs, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE—the United Arab Emirates—have pledged to provide our deployed troops with all the food and fuel they need. Generous assistance will also be provided to stalwart front-line nations, such as Turkey and Egypt. I am also heartened to report that this international response extends to the neediest victims of this conflict—those refugees. For our part, we’ve contributed $28 million for relief efforts. This is but a portion of what is needed. I commend, in particular, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and several European nations who have joined us in this purely humanitarian effort.
    There’s an energy-related cost to be borne as well. Oil-producing nations are already replacing lost Iraqi and Kuwaiti output. More than half of what was lost has been made up. And we’re getting superb cooperation. If producers, including the United States, continue steps to expand oil and gas production, we can stabilize prices and guarantee against hardship. Additionally, we and several of our allies always have the option to extract oil from our strategic petroleum reserves if conditions warrant. As I’ve pointed out before, conservation efforts are essential to keep our energy needs as low as possible. And we must then take advantage of our energy sources across the board: coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear. Our failure to do these things has made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Finally, let no one even contemplate profiteering from this crisis. We will not have it.
    I cannot predict just how long it will take to convince Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Sanctions will take time to have their full intended effect. We will continue to review all options with our allies, but let it be clear: we will not let this aggression stand.
    Our interest, our involvement in the Gulf is not transitory. It predated Saddam Hussein’s aggression and will survive it. Long after all our troops come home—and we all hope it’s soon, very soon—there will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf. Our role then: to deter future aggression. Our role is to help our friends in their own self-defense. And something else: to curb the proliferation of chemical, biological, ballistic missile and, above all, nuclear technologies.
    Let me also make clear that the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is with Iraq’s dictator and with his aggression. Iraq will not be permitted to annex Kuwait. That’s not a threat, that’s not a boast, that’s just the way it’s going to be.
    Our ability to function effectively as a great power abroad depends on how we conduct ourselves at home. Our economy, our Armed Forces, our energy dependence, and our cohesion all determine whether we can help our friends and stand up to our foes. For America to lead, America must remain strong and vital. Our world leadership and domestic strength are mutual and reinforcing; a woven piece, strongly bound as Old Glory. To revitalize our leadership, our leadership capacity, we must address our budget deficit—not after election day, or next year, but now.
    Higher oil prices slow our growth, and higher defense costs would only make our fiscal deficit problem worse. That deficit was already greater than it should have been—a projected $232 billion for the coming year. It must—it will—be reduced.
    To my friends in Congress, together we must act this very month—before the next fiscal year begins on October 1st—to get America’s economic house in order. The Gulf situation helps us realize we are more economically vulnerable than we ever should be. Americans must never again enter any crisis, economic or military, with an excessive dependence on foreign oil and an excessive burden of Federal debt.
    Most Americans are sick and tired of endless battles in the Congress and between the branches over budget matters. It is high time we pulled together and get the job done right. It’s up to us to straighten this out. This job has four basic parts. First, the Congress should, this month, within a budget agreement, enact growth-oriented tax measures—to help avoid recession in the short term and to increase savings, investment, productivity, and competitiveness for the longer term. These measures include extending incentives for research and experimentation; expanding the use of IRA’s for new homeowners; establishing tax-deferred family savings accounts; creating incentives for the creation of enterprise zones and initiatives to encourage more domestic drilling; and, yes, reducing the tax rate on capital gains.
    And second, the Congress should, this month, enact a prudent multiyear defense program, one that reflects not only the improvement in East-West relations but our broader responsibilities to deal with the continuing risks of outlaw action and regional conflict. Even with our obligations in the Gulf, a sound defense budget can have some reduction in real terms; and we’re prepared to accept that. But to go beyond such levels, where cutting defense would threaten our vital margin of safety, is something I will never accept. The world is still dangerous. And surely, that is now clear. Stability’s not secure. American interests are far reaching. Interdependence has increased. The consequences of regional instability can be global. This is no time to risk America’s capacity to protect her vital interests.
    And third, the Congress should, this month, enact measures to increase domestic energy production and energy conservation in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. These measures should include my proposals to increase incentives for domestic oil and gas exploration, fuel-switching, and to accelerate the development of the Alaskan energy resources without damage to wildlife. As you know, when the oil embargo was imposed in the early 1970’s, the United States imported almost 6 million barrels of oil a day. This year, before the Iraqi invasion, U.S. imports had risen to nearly 8 million barrels per day. And we’d moved in the wrong direction. And now we must act to correct that trend.
    And fourth, the Congress should, this month, enact a 5-year program to reduce the projected debt and deficits by $500 billion—that’s by half a trillion dollars. And if, with the Congress, we can develop a satisfactory program by the end of the month, we can avoid the ax of sequester—deep across-the-board cuts that would threaten our military capacity and risk substantial domestic disruption. I want to be able to tell the American people that we have truly solved the deficit problem. And for me to do that, a budget agreement must meet these tests: It must include the measures I’ve recommended to increase economic growth and reduce dependence on foreign oil. It must be fair. All should contribute, but the burden should not be excessive for any one group of programs or people. It must address the growth of government’s hidden liabilities. It must reform the budget process and, further, it must be real.
    I urge Congress to provide a comprehensive 5-year deficit reduction program to me as a complete legislative package, with measures to assure that it can be fully enforced. America is tired of phony deficit reduction or promise-now, save-later plans. It is time for a program that is credible and real. And finally, to the extent that the deficit reduction program includes new revenue measures, it must avoid any measure that would threaten economic growth or turn us back toward the days of punishing income tax rates. That is one path we should not head down again.
    I have been pleased with recent progress, although it has not always seemed so smooth. But now it’s time to produce. I hope we can work out a responsible plan. But with or without agreement from the budget summit, I ask both Houses of the Congress to allow a straight up-or-down vote on a complete $500-billion deficit reduction package not later than September 28. If the Congress cannot get me a budget, then Americans will have to face a tough, mandated sequester. I’m hopeful, in fact, I’m confident that the Congress will do what it should. And I can assure you that we in the executive branch will do our part.
    In the final analysis, our ability to meet our responsibilities abroad depends upon political will and consensus at home. This is never easy in democracies, for we govern only with the consent of the governed. And although free people in a free society are bound to have their differences, Americans traditionally come together in times of adversity and challenge.
    Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. That’s why they sweat and toil in the sand and the heat and the sun. If they can come together under such adversity, if old adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States can work in common cause, then surely we who are so fortunate to be in this great Chamber—Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives—can come together to fulfill our responsibilities here.
    Thank you. Good night. And God bless the United States of America.


  • President Bush’s New World Order 1990

    Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (September 11, 1990 …

    PRESIDENT BUSH’S 911 VISION OF A “NEW WORLD ORDER”

    THIS IS THE VISION THAT HE SHARED…….

    A NEW WORLD ORDER—CAN EMERGE:

    A NEW ERA—FREER FROM THE THREAT OF TERROR

    A WORLD QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE’VE KNOWN.

    ——————————————————————————————

    Sept 13, 2016 THANK GOD, DONALD J. TRUMP  HAS A DIFFERENT VISION FOR AMERICA, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  DONALD J. TRUMP SHALL MAKE “AMERICA FIRST”

    ——————————————————————————

    PROMPTED BY THE IRAQI INVASION OF KUWAIT.PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH SAID,

    “IT WAS THEN THAT “I”  DECIDED TO ACT TO CHECK THAT AGGRESSION.”

    —————————————————

    WHO IN THE WORLD SHALL BE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DESTABILIZATION OF THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, THE MASS KILLING, MASS MIGRATION, MASS IMMIGRATION, AND THE IRREPARABLE MASS DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY OVER 15 YEARS OF CONFLICTS AND WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

    “PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE UNSC [UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL]”

    I THINK NOT!

    YOU READ THIS YOU DECIDE

    ——————————————————————

    One constant for the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL since 1980 is that it has been at grips with conflicts involving Iraq – conflicts with Iraq’s neighbours and also internal strife prior to and particularly since 2003. Every instrument at the Council’s disposal, including all the coercive ones, have been invoked at one time or another against authorities in Iraq or to assist them.

    ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS TO A DEGREE PROVIDED GRIST FOR

    PRESIDENT BUSH’S VISION OF A “NEW WORLD ORDER”

    ————————————————————————————

    TRUTH  AND CONSEQUENCES

    (1)  THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IRAQ SANCTIONS

    (2)  DESTABILIZED THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST?

    (3) PROVOKING THE 911 2001 ATTACK ON NEW YORK CITY?

    (4)   VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS?

    This Address was given on 911, 1990 exactly 11 years before the 911 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City.

    ———————————————————————————-

    President George H. W. Bush’s  New World Order Address

    full text? click on the link

    Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (September 11, 1990 …

    Washington’s stance did little to induce Saddam Hussein to  cooperate with UNSCOM.

    Even prior to this, the sanctions proved critically ill-suited over time to induce compliance with the UN’s wider demands articulated in Resolution 687, as the Saddam Hussein

    regime itself suffered little from the effect of sanctions. Worse still, the sanctions created the potential for a lucrative black market largely controlled by and benefiting those in power in Baghdad

    while the Iraqi population suffered ‘near-apocalyptic’ humanitarian consequences.  After the programme began, an estimated 50,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died as a result of the sanctions and child mortality rates more than doubled. Some even compared the sanctions regime itself to a weapon of mass destruction.

    Scholar Ramon Das, in the Human Rights Research Journal of the New Zealand Center for Public Law, examined each of the “most widely accepted ethical frameworks” in the context of violations of Iraqi human rights under the sanctions, finding that “primary responsibility rests with the UNSC [United Nations Security Council]” under these frameworks, including rights-utilitarianism, moral Kantianism, and consequentialism.

    —————————————————————————–

    KANTIANISM IS DEFINED AS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY THAT FOLLOWS THE WORKS OF IMMANUEL KANT WHO BELIEVED THAT RATIONAL BEINGS HAVE DIGNITY AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

    A PHILOSOPHY OF RATIONAL MORALITY INCLUDING GOD AND FREEDOM

    CONSEQUENTIALISM IS THE CLASS OF NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIES HOLDING THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONE’S CONDUCT ARE THE ULTIMATE BASIS FOR ANY JUDGMENT ABOUT THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS OF THAT CONDUCT. IT IS THE DOCTRINE

    THAT THE MORALITY OF AN ACTION IS TO BE JUDGED SOLELY BY ITS CONSEQUENCES.

     —————————————————————————

    TRUTH, CONSEQUENCES, CULPABILITY AND CONSEQUENTIALISM

    (1)  THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

    (2) IRAQ SANCTIONS DESTABILIZED THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST?

    (3) PROVOKED THE 911 2001 ATTACK ON NEW YORK CITY?

    (4)   VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS?

    Scholar Ramon Das, in the Human Rights Research Journal of the New Zealand Center for Public Law, examined each of the “most widely accepted ethical frameworks” in the context of violations of Iraqi human rights under the sanctions, finding that,

     INDEED….

    “PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE UNSC [UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL]”

    under these frameworks, including rights-utilitarianism, moral KANTIANISM, and CONSEQUENTIALISM.

    ————————————————————————————

    WE CAN NOW POINT TO  THE TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES OF   PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH’S  “NEW WORLD ORDER” ADDRESS,

    THE CRISIS IN THE PERSIAN GULF, THE RESPONSIBILITY AND CULPABILITY OF PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH.

    CONSEQUENTIALISM?  You decide

    THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONE’S CONDUCT ARE THE ULTIMATE BASIS FOR ANY JUDGMENT ABOUT THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS OF THAT CONDUCT. IT IS THE DOCTRINE THAT THE MORALITY OF AN ACTION IS TO BE JUDGED SOLELY BY ITS CONSEQUENCES.

    —————————————————————————————-

    TRUTH  AND CONSEQUENCES? INCLUDING GOD AND FREEDOM

    The United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iraq following that country’s invasion of Kuwait.

    Resolutions 661 and 687 expressed the goals of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and extended-range ballistic missiles, prohibiting any support for terrorism, and forcing Iraq to pay war reparations and all foreign debt.

    ——————————————————————–

    TRUTH, CONSEQUENCES, CULPABILITY AND CONSEQUENTIALISM 

    The UN Security Council and Iraq – UNU Collections – United Nations …

    https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5/wp01_theunscandiraq1.pdf

    by D Malone – ‎2013 –

    ———————————————————————————–

    HERE ARE THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS ANTI-AMERICAN SNIPPETS FROM

    PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH’S  NEW WORLD ORDER ADDRESS

    THIS IS THE VISION THAT HE SHARED…….

    A NEW WORLD ORDER—CAN EMERGE: A NEW ERA—FREER FROM THE THREAT OF TERROR

    A WORLD QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE’VE KNOWN.

    We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective……

    —————————————————————————————-

    I AM COMPELLED… Just asking….

    THE REAL CRISIS IN THE PERSIAN GULF?

    Just saying …..

    THE PERSIAN GULF AND ITS COASTAL AREAS ARE THE WORLD’S LARGEST SINGLE SOURCE OF CRUDE OIL.

    ———————————————————————————-

    fifth objective continued……

    A NEW WORLD ORDER—CAN EMERGE: A NEW ERA—FREER FROM THE THREAT OF TERROR,

    stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. AN ERA IN WHICH THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.

    A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor.

    Today that new world is struggling to be born,

     A WORLD QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE’VE KNOWN.

     A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

    THIS IS THE VISION THAT I SHARED with President Gorbachev in Helsinki.

     HE AND OTHER LEADERS FROM EUROPE, THE GULF, AND AROUND THE WORLD UNDERSTAND

    THAT HOW WE MANAGE THIS CRISIS TODAY COULD SHAPE THE FUTURE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

    ——————————————————————-

    A NEW PARTNERSHIP OF NATIONS HAS BEGUN.

    These goals are not ours alone. THEY’VE BEEN ENDORSED BY THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL FIVE TIMES IN AS MANY WEEKS.

     Most countries share our concern for principle. AND MANY HAVE A STAKE IN THE STABILITY OF THE PERSIAN GULF.

    This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world.

    VITAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE AT RISK AS WELL.

    IRAQ ITSELF CONTROLS SOME 10 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S PROVEN OIL RESERVES.

     IRAQ PLUS KUWAIT CONTROLS TWICE THAT.

     AN IRAQ PERMITTED TO SWALLOW KUWAIT WOULD HAVE THE ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER, AS WELL AS THE ARROGANCE, TO INTIMIDATE AND COERCE ITS NEIGHBORS—

    NEIGHBORS WHO CONTROL THE LION’S SHARE OF THE WORLD’S REMAINING OIL RESERVES.

    WE CANNOT PERMIT A RESOURCE SO VITAL TO BE DOMINATED BY ONE SO RUTHLESS

    One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this fundamental truth. From the outset, acting hand in hand with others, we’ve sought to fashion the broadest possible international response to Iraq’s aggression.

    THE LEVEL OF WORLD COOPERATION AND CONDEMNATION OF IRAQ IS UNPRECEDENTED.

    ARMED FORCES FROM COUNTRIES SPANNING FOUR CONTINENTS ARE THERE AT THE REQUEST OF KING FAHD OF SAUDI ARABIA TO DETER AND, IF NEED BE, TO DEFEND AGAINST ATTACK.

     MOSLEMS AND NON-MOSLEMS, ARABS AND NON-ARABS, SOLDIERS FROM MANY NATIONS STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, RESOLUTE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN’S AMBITIONS.

    WE CAN NOW POINT TO FIVE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS THAT CONDEMN IRAQ’S AGGRESSION.

    ————————————————————————————-

    The UN Security Council and Iraq – UNU Collections – United Nations …

    https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5/wp01_theunscandiraq1.pdf

    by D Malone – ‎2013 –

    Finally, the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission

    (UNIKOM) was established by Resolution 689 in April 1991. Once again, signaling a new a post-cold war vigour, the Council empowered UNIKOM with duties under a Chapter

    VII mandate, implying coercive powers if necessary.

    ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS TO A DEGREE PROVIDED GRIST FOR

    PRESIDENT BUSH’S VISION OF A “NEW WORLD ORDER”

    OUTLINED IN A SPEECH TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON 11 SEPTEMBER 1990 PROMPTED BY THE IRAQI INVASION OF KUWAIT.

    WASHINGTON’S STANCE DID LITTLE TO INDUCE SADDAM HUSSEIN TO  COOPERATE WITH UNSCOM.

     Even prior to this, the sanctions proved critically ill-suited over time to induce compliance with the UN’s wider demands articulated in Resolution 687, as the Saddam Hussein

    regime itself suffered little from the effect of sanctions. Worse still, the sanctions created the potential for a lucrative black market largely controlled by and benefiting those in power in Baghdad while

    THE IRAQI POPULATION SUFFERED ‘NEAR-APOCALYPTIC’ HUMANITARIAN CONSEQUENCES.

     AFTER THE PROGRAMME BEGAN, AN ESTIMATED 50,000 IRAQI CHILDREN UNDER

    THE AGE OF FIVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THE SANCTIONS AND CHILD MORTALITY RATES MORE THAN DOUBLED. SOME EVEN COMPARED THE SANCTIONS REGIME ITSELF TO A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

    ————————————————————————-

    TRUTH, CONSEQUENTIALISM AND CULPABILITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IRAQ SANCTIONS

    WHO IN THE WORLD SHALL BE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DESTABILIZATION OF THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, THE MASS KILLING, MASS MIGRATION, MASS IMMIGRATION, AND THE IRREPAIRABLE MASS DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY OVER 15 YEARS OF CONFLICTS AND WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

    “PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE UNSC [UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL]”

    I THINK NOT!


  • The Failure of Foreign Aid 1946-2016

    The Continuing Failure of U.S. Foreign Aid 1946-2016

    Respond to Syria Crisis

    July 13, 2016 Highlights

    U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry announces nearly $439 million in new U.S. Government (USG) humanitarian funding for Syria and neighboring countries. Fact Sheet Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC

    THIS NEW FUNDING BRINGS U.S. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TO THIS CONFLICT TO MORE THAN $5.1 BILLION SINCE THE START OF THE CRISIS.

    SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY PLEDGED ABOUT $890 MILLION IN AID TO SYRIA AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES ON THURSDAY,

    A COMMITMENT THAT WILL MAINTAIN WASHINGTON’S POSITION AS THE SINGLE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE FIVE-YEAR CIVIL WAR.

    ————————————————————————–

    AUG 26, 2016, SO AFTER MORE THAN $5.1 BILLION IN U.S. TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR WASHINGTON DC’S CONTINUING POLICY FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA,  SINCE THE START OF THE FIVE-YEAR CIVIL WAR.

    American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took office in 1961. Despite countless reforms, foreign aid is still a failure.

    The American people are witness to, and paying for the Continuing Failure of WASHINGTON DC’S Foreign Aid policy 1946-2016.

    AS TRUMP WOULD SAY ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN MAKING VERY BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA, FOR 70 YEARS.

    The bottom line….

    VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 2016.

    WHY?

    Because, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else. Winston Churchill

    ——————————————————————-

    Government Accountability Office 1982

    ID-82-36: Published: Jun 15, 1982. Publicly Released: Jun 15, 1982.

    Government Accountability Office 2016?

    ———————————————————————-

    VOTE FOR TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE FOR AN ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT 2016

    ———————————————————————

    THE UNITED STATES REMAINS THE WORLD’S LARGEST BILATERAL DONOR OF ECONOMIC AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

    WHAT DID TRUMP SAY ABOUT NATO?

    U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries – Forbe

    www.forbes.com/sites/othercomments/…/u-s-gives-financial-aid-to-96-of-all-countries/

    How much money is spent on foreign aid? U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries.
    ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, “THE UNITED STATES REMAINED THE WORLD’S LARGEST BILATERAL DONOR, OBLIGATING approximately $48.4 billion$31.2 billion in economic assistance and $17.2 billion in military assistance.”

    ———————————————————————-

    REMEMBER… THIS IS AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY, BILLIONS  AND BILLIONS, IN FACT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT IN THE LAST 70 YEARS.

    WA DC DIPLOMATIC FOREIGN AID POLICY 1946-2016?

    IF THERE’S A GLOBAL PROBLEM?

    THROW AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY AT IT.

    ———————————————————————-

    The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid | Cato Institute

    www.cato.org/publications/policy…/continuing-failure-foreignaid

    full text below

    ————————————————————————

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails – National Center for Policy Analysis

    www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=23228

    National Center for Policy Analysis

    full text below

    ——————————————————————–

    The following website is difficult to navigate.

    I’ll walk you through it.

    Click on the link below

    scroll down to the blue box

    countries that receive the most foreign aid,

    click on it.

    Now you are in starting with #25  countries that receive the most total foreign assistance from the U.S..

    The dollar amounts in the boxes are the cumulative total of foreign aid given to each country from 1946-2014. Dollar figures in the story are inflation-adjusted to 2014.

    FOR CLARIFICATION

    The cumulative total of foreign aid 1946-2014  given to Sudan $263,922,519

    #25 – Sudan

    In (by)  2014, Sudan received a total of $263,922,519 in foreign assistance from the U.S.

    That full amount in 2014 was in economic aid; the U.S. did not provide any military aid to Sudan in 2014.

    When you hover on the year on the graphs, you will find the amount of U.S. foreign aid given to Sudan during that year.

    For example in 2007 Sudan received U.S. economic aid in the amount of $860 million and an additional $413 million in military spending.

    ———————————————————————–

    Countries That Receive the Most Foreign Aid From the U.S. | InsideGov

    usforeignaid.insidegov.com/stories/14502/countriesreceivemostforeignaid

    Jun 15, 2016 – InsideGov ranked the 25 countries that receive the most total foreign assistance from the U.S.. By Palmer Gibbs on June 15, 2016

    Using the most recent data available from USAID. the UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, InsideGov ranked the 25 countries that receive the most total foreign assistance from the U.S.

    The wide array of foreign policy positions and ideas indicate there are a lot of ways the United States can be involved on the international stage. With this in mind, Graphiq politics site InsideGov decided to examine which countries receive the most foreign aid from the U.S. Using the most recent data available from the United States Agency for International Development, InsideGov ranked the 25 countries that receive the most total foreign financial assistance (the cumulative total) from 1946-2016

    from the U.S., listing countries from smallest to largest total received.

    Foreign assistance includes loans, contracts and grants, but not debt forgiveness.

    THE DATA SOURCE CATEGORIZES ASSISTANCE AS EITHER ECONOMIC OR MILITARY, AND COVERS (the cumulative total) U.S. ASSISTANCE FROM 1946 TO 2014.

    Dollar figures in the story are inflation-adjusted to 2014.

    Source: USAIDAS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

    ——————————————————————————-

    The following study concludes with an analysis of why U.S. foreign aid has failed in the past and why it will most likely fail in the future.

    Military aid and security assistance is a different issue and is not examined here.

    The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid | Cato Institute

    www.cato.org/publications/policy…/continuing-failure-foreignaid

    Cato Institute

    by J Bovard – ‎Cited by 40 – ‎Related articles

    For 40 years, U.S. foreign aid has been judged by its intentions, not its results. … American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took …

    Policy Analysis No. 65

    The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid 1946-2016

    By James Bovard

    January 31, 1986

    Executive Summary

    For 40 years, U.S. foreign aid has been judged by its intentions, not its results. Foreign aid programs have been perpetuated and expanded not because they have succeeded, but because giving foreign aid still seems like a good idea. But foreign aid has rarely done anything that countries could not have done for themselves. And it has often encouraged the recipient governments’ worst tendencies—helping to underwrite programs and policies that have starved thousands of people and derailed struggling economies.

    In agriculture, in economic planning, in food assistance, U.S. foreign aid has routinely failed to benefit the foreign poor. In Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has dotted the countryside with “white elephants”: idle cement plants, near-empty convention centers, abandoned roads, and—perhaps the biggest white elephant of them all—a growing phalanx of corrupt, meddling, and overpaid bureaucrats.

    Since 1946, the United States has given over $146 billion in humanitarian assistance to foreign countries. In 1985, the United States provided over $10 billion in non-military aid abroad, ranging from free food to balance-of-payments support to project-assistance and population-planning programs. AID employs over 4,500 employees to administer these programs, many of which have expanded rapidly under the Reagan administration.

    Americans have a long tradition of generously aiding the victims of foreign earthquakes, famines, and wars. Before World War II, private citizens provided almost all of America’s foreign assistance. After World War II, the Truman administration decided that a larger, more centralized effort was necessary to revitalize the war-torn economies of Europe. Economic planning was the rage in Washington in the late 1940s, and Marshall Plan administrators exported their new-found panacea. The Marshall Plan poured over $13 billion into Europe and coincided with an economic revival across the continent. The best analysis indicates that Europe would have recovered regardless of U.S. aid, and that the clearest effect of the Marshall Plan was to increase the recipient governments’ control of their economies.[1]

    The apparent success of the Marshall Plan led Truman in 1949 to propose his Point Four Program to provide a smaller version of the Marshall Plan for poor countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. Truman declared that Point Four would be “a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of undeveloped areas.”[2]

    In the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration downplayed humanitarian aid, concentrating on security assistance to strategic allies. In 1954, Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey pushed the Food For Peace program through Congress, but that was the largest innovation in economic assistance during the decade. When John F. Kennedy took the helm in 1961, the stage was set for a huge expansion of foreign aid. In a special message to Congress, Kennedy called for “a dramatic turning point in the troubled history of foreign aid” and proclaimed that the sixties would be the “decade of development”—“the period when many less- developed nations make the transition into self-sustaining growth.” Kennedy placed heavy stress on the willingness of recipient governments “to undertake necessary internal reform and self-help.”[3] In 1961, AID was created, and the U.S. foreign aid bureaucracy came into its own.

    Despite Kennedy’s stress on requiring reforms from recipient governments, foreign aid routinely went to countries pursuing policies destined to turn them into permanent economic cripples. Partly as a result of a widespread perception that such aid was usually wasted, it consistently ranked as one of the least popular government programs with the American public.[4]

    From the mid-sixties to the early seventies, South Vietnam received the bulk of U.S. economic aid. In 1973, Congress, concerned about the ineffectiveness of U.S. aid, heavily revised aid-program goals to focus more on social services and less on economic development.

    When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, many observers expected a thorough reform of U.S. foreign aid. Reagan declared in a major speech before the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, “Unless a nation puts its own financial and economic house in order, no amount of aid will produce progress.”[5] Since then, despite Reagan’s tough rhetoric on requiring reform from recipient governments, little has changed. American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took office in 1961. Despite countless reforms, foreign aid is still a failure.

    Instead of breaking the “endless cycle of poverty,” foreign aid has become the opiate of the Third World. AID and other donors have encouraged Third World governments to rely on handouts instead of on themselves for development. No matter how irresponsible, corrupt, or oppressive a Third World government may be, there is always some Western government or international agency anxious to supply it with a few more million dollars. By subsidizing political irresponsibility and pernicious policies, foreign aid ill serves the world’s poor.

    American foreign aid has often harmed the Third World poor. In Indonesia, the government confiscated subsistence farmers’ meager plots for AID-financed irrigation canals. In Mali, farmers were forced to sell their crops at giveaway prices to a joint project of AID and the Mali government. In Egypt, Haiti, and elsewhere, farmers have seen the prices for their own crops nose-dive when U.S. free food has been given to their countries.

    AID cannot be blamed for all the mistakes made in the projects it bankrolls. However, by providing a seemingly endless credit line to governments regardless of their policies, AID effectively discourages governments from learning from and correcting their mistakes. Giving some Third World governments perpetual assistance is about as humanitarian as giving an alcoholic the key to a brewery. Good intentions are no excuse for helping to underwrite an individual’s—or a country’s— self-destruction.

    Foreign aid programs appear to be incorrigible. For 35 years, American foreign aid policymakers seem to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. U.S. foreign aid projects routinely repeat the same mistakes today that were committed decades ago. One telltale ironic report title from the General Accounting Office says it all: “Experience—A Potential Tool for Improving U.S. Assistance Abroad.”[6]

    ———————————————————————–

    Experience: A Potential Tool for Improving US Assistance Abroad

    www.gao.gov/products/ID-82-36
    Government Accountability Office

    GAO examined how the Agency for International Development (AID) identifies, records, and uses the knowledge and experience gained from development …

    ————————————————————————

    This study focuses on the failure of U.S. humanitarian aid to achieve its goals. It begins with a close examination of one of the most popular foreign aid programs, Food for Peace. Then comes a review of AID’s record in resurrecting the economies of Central America, followed by an analysis of AID’s role in African agricultural development. AID’s achievements in Egypt and Indonesia are then reviewed, followed by an analysis of AID’s role in spurring the development of private business and capitalism in poor countries. The study concludes with an analysis of why U.S. foreign aid has failed in the past and why it will most likely fail in the future. Military aid and security assistance is a different issue and is not examined here.

    Read the Full Policy Analysis PDF (66.68 KB)

    ——————————————————————

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails – National Center for Policy Analysis

    www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=23228

    National Center for Policy Analysis

    May 31, 2013 – State-provided foreign aid creates the incentive for already … For upwards of 50 years the U.S. federal government has been sending developmental aid to other countries … Browse more articles on Tax and Spending Issues …

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails

    May 31, 2013

    For upwards of 50 years the U.S. federal government has been sending developmental aid to other countries trying to create vibrant economies. Yet, there have been no recorded monumental successes with the use of developmental aid. Based on the high standard of living enjoyed in the United States, you might think that the U.S. government would know how to replicate that standard of living, but they don’t, says Christopher Coyne, F. A. Harper professor of economics at the Mercatus Center.

    In the minds of many first world leaders, development of impoverished nations does not come from going through the same long process first world countries did. Instead, it contains a top-down approach that promises great things like ending poverty. However, there are multiple reasons why state-provided aid cannot bring nations out of poverty:

    • Policymakers do not have access to the knowledge needed to allocate scarce resources to their best uses. In his critique of socialism in the 1930s and 1940s, Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek made this exact point, noting that even the most qualified and benevolent planners lack the knowledge to produce even the most basic items in a cost-effective manner.
    • Aid creates the incentive for already dysfunctional governments to remain ineffective. A cross-country study by Stephen Knack of the World Bank found that foreign aid undermines the quality of political institutions in recipient countries through weakened accountability of political actors, more corruption, greater chances of conflict, and a weakening of the incentive to reform inefficient institutions and policies.
    • Government agencies tend to focus on spending money as quickly as possible on observable outputs to signal their importance and the need for more money. In the absence of clear lines of accountability, money is often wasted.

    The current operations of aid to foreign countries fail because there is not enough supervision as to where the funds go, or how the funds are spent specifically. The real solution to these problems is the guarantee of person liberty and property for citizens in those impoverished nation. Human nature will do the rest.

    Source: Christopher Coyne, “Why Government Aid Programs Aren’t the Best Way to End Poverty,” Mercatus Center, May 21, 2013.

    – See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=23228#sthash.B7ixm8qU.dpuf

    ——————————————————————-

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails  May 31, 2013

    Government Accountability Office 1982

    ID-82-36: Published: Jun 15, 1982. Publicly Released: Jun 15, 1982.

    Experience: A Potential Tool for Improving US Assistance Abroad

    www.gao.gov/products/ID-82-36

    ———————————————————-

    American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took office in 1961. Despite countless reforms, foreign aid is still a failure.

    ——————————————————-

    INDEED U.S. FOREIGN AID HAS FAILED IN SYRIA AUG 26, 2016

    AFTER MORE THAN $5.1 BILLION IN U.S. TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR WASHINGTON DC’S CONTINUING DIPLOMATIC POLICY FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA, OVER A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, SINCE THE START OF THE FIVE-YEAR CIVIL WAR.

    The American people are witness to, and paying for the Continuing Failure of WASHINGTON DC’S Foreign Aid policy 1946-2016.

    ————————————————————–

    In 1982, the GAO examined how the Agency for International Development (AID) identifies, records, and uses the knowledge and experience gained from development …

    So, I CALLED THE Government Accountability Office 1(202)512-4800.

    Georgette directed my call to 1-(202)512-5941  a GAO research team? and I left them a message.

    AS TRUMP SAID,  ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN MAKING VERY BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA, FOR 70 YEARS.

    VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 2016

    WHY?

    Because, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else. Winston Churchill