June 30th - A handover of power or a demi-colonialistic effort

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United States says Iraq will be sovereign, no longer under military occupation, on June 30. But most power will reside within the world’s largest U.S. Embassy, backed by 110,000 U.S. troops.
The fledgling Iraqi government will be capable of tackling little more than drawing up a budget and preparing for elections, top U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
“We’re still here. We’ll be paying a lot of attention and we’ll have a lot of influence,” a top U.S. official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. “We’re going to have the world’s largest diplomatic mission with a significant amount of political weight.”
In just over three months, the mantle of sovereignty in Iraq will be passed to an interim government. Its composition and the manner of its choosing will be decided after a United Nations team arrives this week.

But with Iraqi elections scheduled for December or January, the interim government will last a fleeting seven months at most: a butterfly’s life, in legislative terms.
Click to expand...
source

So...the pull out is on June 30th...if you can call leaving over 100,000 troops present any pull-out at all...and the Iraquis will have soverignty...if you can call the 'significant amont of political weight' that the current invaders have as actually ... giving over sovereignty. In the beginning of 2005, the real first test of democracy will happen.

What happens if the vote doesn't go the way the UN wants it to? What if the vote doesn't go the way the USA wants it to? Will the democratic effort's rulings have any real power over the future of Iraq, or will Iraq become a demi-colony of the UK and USA?

comments?
 
Japan & Germany are both sovereign nations with locally based American defenders.
 
Not when attitudes like that exist. Had the greatest generation had this amount of negativity it wouldn't have happened then.
 
Gonz said:
Not when attitudes like that exist. Had the greatest generation had this amount of negativity it wouldn't have happened then.
Click to expand...
It's more than a military prescence that we're talking about here. We're talking about 'political influence'. That's a horse of a different colour. I pretty much knew a long time ago, that there would be a military presence in Iraq for decades to come...that's a natural progression, but don't you think that maintaining an active influence on the political process which is democracy, will likely tinge the process?
 
We’ll be paying a lot of attention and we’ll have a lot of influence,” a top U.S. official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. “We’re going to have the world’s largest diplomatic mission with a significant amount of political weight.”
Click to expand...


You never do read both sides of what you post, do ya? You just described both Canada and Mexico. Influence isn't just rifles and tanks. It's money. Any country with a serious international economy is heavily influenced by the world's largest consumer. The US is gonna make sure that the people of Iraq get a new economy, latched directly onto the Wall St. Nipple. That's more influence than 100 a-bombs.
 
Gonz said:
Not when attitudes like that exist. Had the greatest generation had this amount of negativity it wouldn't have happened then.
Click to expand...
They were defending their homeland from an imminent threat. No comparison exists (except in your mind).

Edit: Now that I've thought about it a while, I find it a little sad that in your self-righteous fervor you would belittle their accomplishments so. Especially today.
 
Come in, make snide remarks, don't back them with reason & then want to drop it. This is getting old. Say something to prop up your position at least.

Japan & Germany were both fighting for "their homeland".
 
Gonz said:
Come in, make snide remarks, don't back them with reason & then want to drop it. This is getting old. Say something to prop up your position at least.

Japan & Germany were both fighting for "their homeland".
Click to expand...
True enough...but not from invasion...but to secure their expansionism. When Iraq invaded Kuwait and got attacked in return...they didn't strenghthen their freedoms, nor their self-worth when they were repulsed. BushSr. didn't go for the long haul and actually try and change the power structure over there....bad move.

Now... unlike Germany and Japan, the Iraquis are defending their own borders. When you defend your own homes, you give it more heart. If, similarly, you are trying to save your own homes (assist the USA/UK/UN contingent) in overthrowing the current dictator...you're also giving it more heart and the results whould mean more to you. Likewise, the detractors are also heartened and will try harder to free their land. *More suicide bombers/attacks on convoys/etc...*

It's a viscious circle...I don't think that the situation will allow the Iraqui GVT to really take over at all. I'm thinking 'puppet GVT' at best.
 
Gonz said:
Come in, make snide remarks, don't back them with reason & then want to drop it. This is getting old. Say something to prop up your position at least.

Japan & Germany were both fighting for "their homeland".
Click to expand...

But were they fighting for their religion.

I've said this before ,but any election is going to be won be whoever the Religious Leaders want , so its not very Democratic is it.If you only allow those people to run who aren't going to be supported by the Religious Leaders ,then this isn't "truely democratic" either is it.

There lies the conundrum, allowing the Religious Leaders to win is going to mean the US won't be allowed to stay and you've got another Iran,to "force choices " upon the electorate isn't going to achieve the desired goal either.
 
AB, you missed one little detail. The women.

Any election is, per force, going to allow women to vote. Since none of the clerics will accept giving the vote to women, the women are going to be hard pressed to follow their lead. They'll vote for whoever promises to continue to allow them power. And you can bet your last US greenback that the americans are gonna make them swallow it whole.
 
In a country thats approx. 90% muslim (both Sunni and Shiite) any government is going to have problems implementing non-Islamic laws.


Women in Iraq Decry Decision To Curb Rights
BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 -- For the past four decades, Iraqi women have enjoyed some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of strict Islamic legal doctrine known as sharia.
Click to expand...

It wasn't passed because it needed US approval ,but it gave this disclaimer
The council's decisions must be approved by L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, and aides said unofficially that his imprimatur for this change was unlikely. But experts here said that once U.S. officials turn over political power to Iraqis at the end of June, conservative forces could press ahead with their agenda to make sharia the supreme law. Spokesmen for Bremer did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Click to expand...
source
 
Professur said:
Influence isn't just rifles and tanks. It's money. Any country with a serious international economy is heavily influenced by the world's largest consumer. The US is gonna make sure that the people of Iraq get a new economy, latched directly onto the Wall St. Nipple. That's more influence than 100 a-bombs.
Click to expand...

I think this defines influence???They are talking about the decision on who will Iraqi President after June 30th

Coalition spokesman Dan Senor denied the Americans were showing favoritism toward Pachachi. However, a member of the council speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity said that lead U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and Brahimi were exerting “massive pressure” in support of Pachachi.

Bremer and President Bush’s special envoy, Robert Blackwill, attended part of a five-hour council meeting Sunday and urged the members not to vote on the presidency, apparently fearing that al-Yawer would win, council sources told The AP.

The Americans warned that if the council went ahead and voted, the United States might not recognize the choice, the sources said. Bremer has the final say on all policy decisions in Iraq.

The coalition-backed Baghdad daily Al-Sabah reported Monday that al-Yawer had turned down a Bremer request to take himself out of the running. Al-Yawer insisted that the selection must be made by the council, the newspaper said. There was no independent confirmation of the report.
Click to expand...

source

Seems to me thay are trying ensure they have "influence " after June.
 
These are all good points. What they(the iraqis) need, in the short term, is enough appointed power to give them time. Let the people realize that they are not limited to two choices.

America is chock-full of religious zealots. They have, usually, decent sized followings. A few are actually powerful men in the short term. Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell made enough noise & got enough motivated bodies to scare the hell out of most of America. Some of what they said made sense. Some was idiotic drivel. The nation paid attention, took some advice & moved on. leaving them & their flock in the wake.

Iraq can do the same. Some religious values are okay. Having Cleric Sadr in power isn't. Since tehy haven't had time to learn to filter out the rhetoric from the pandering they need help. Japan & Germany were both strong countries with heavy national identities, as is Iraq. Both WW2 countries took the better part of a decade to refit & refashion. Both are still strong in their respective traditions. They also both took the freedoms never before seen in their lands & ran with it. They are, today, stronger & more prosperous than they could have ever been under dictators.

Where I get so worked up is, like the people who would prefer to dismantle what has been accomplished before the paint dries or think we can go no farther. They assume people of the middle east, Iraqis in this particular, are ignorant savages with no ability to change. Some believe they can't look past their religion & allow social changes. I have my doubts, at times. I also believe that the harder our detractors fight, the longer it will take. Much like Vietnam, we can win all the battles & lose the war...not because of politicians but because of politics.
 
They assume people of the middle east, Iraqis in this particular, are ignorant savages
Click to expand...
You know, that is just what upsets me. These people had a very advanced civilization when our ancestors were still hiding from thunder and reading the entrails of chickens. They didn't simply pop into existence at the time of Mohammed. I find it arrogant in the extreme to impose our values and way of life on them. The reason it won't work the way it is has nothing to do with the Iraqis and their abilities or lack thereof. It has everything to do with our lack of understanding that forced change will be resisted whether it serves the common good (a debate for another thread) or not.

By the way, you just as much as said that their religious freedom is directly dependent on our approval. Aren't you proud?

Can you stop reading things into other people's comments that were never there in the first place?
 
What gets me is "June 30th - A handover of power " when everyone agrees its gonna take alot longer ,and the US isn't going anywhere until its democratized. Why even bother with such BS for the masses.
 
Gonz said:
Some religious values are okay. Having Cleric Sadr in power isn't. Since tehy haven't had time to learn to filter out the rhetoric from the pandering they need help.
Click to expand...
i.e. we'll tell you what is approved religious freedom and what is not.

Oh, and just as a note, that statement also says that you are the one who considers the Iraqis to be ignorant savages, but I'm sure you don't see that either.

No doubt I took it out of context.:rolleyes:
 
You are indeed incorrect. I happen to believe in the future of Iraq for Iraq & by Iraq. Always have. I do not believe them ignorant savages. Ignorant, perhaps, to a multi-party'd system. They are the victims of over 30 years of a dictator. One. Not more than one. Not many. One. Brutal. Dictator. They need time to re-adjust. Why do you wish to deny them that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top