Early "handover" of Iraq's sovereignty...
According to CNN, Bush and other members of NATO made the decision to transfer sovereignty to Iraq's government Monday, two days earlier than previously planned. As if WWDC weren't enough for one Monday... now I'm going to have to keep my attention focused on MacMinute and CNN at the same time. 
Still, it's very good news, but I'm curious as to why they pushed it forward. Even so, I wish Iraq's interim prime minister and governing counsel the best of luck in what are likely to be some tough times ahead. Any thoughts?
EDIT: Here's the link to the story.
Still, it's very good news, but I'm curious as to why they pushed it forward. Even so, I wish Iraq's interim prime minister and governing counsel the best of luck in what are likely to be some tough times ahead. Any thoughts?
EDIT: Here's the link to the story.
Comments
Originally posted by neutrino23
It is really odd. For a Quisling government why bother to shift the hand over by a few days? Who benefits?
I think the move is probably to throw off would-be saboteurs who had made plans for the 30th. Does that actually make sense? I don't know...
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
This should be a poll-thread. My vote is for total socio/economic collapse and civil war within two years.
two years? more like two days... counting from now... 1, 2, 3....
What a strange "imperialist" power this US is? It ends a brutal terror supporting anti-Semitic dictatorship. Spends billions of dollars trying to get the country up and running again. Then hands over power to a fledgling democracy without deriving any monetary benefit.
Originally posted by Scott
Of course the anti-american left is hoping for collapse in Iraq. No misery is too great when you can blame it on the US.
What a strange "imperialist" power this US is? It ends a brutal terror supporting anti-Semitic dictatorship. Spends billions of dollars trying to get the country up and running again. Then hands over power to a fledgling democracy without deriving any monetary benefit.
Yawn.
You know it's not really the same at all but in a strange way it kind of reminds me of when we pulled out of South Vietnam.
My prediction? The local government won't last long.
Originally posted by Scott
Then hands over power to a fledgling democracy without deriving any monetary benefit.
I'm not too sure about this last point... There were a lot of reasons America waged war with Iraq and, IMO, it is naive to think that ousting Saddam and locating WMD were Bush's sole prospects.
Can you be a little bit sovereign, wouldn't that be like being a little bit pregnant?
I also heard in the news, that those holding SH in custody were considering transferring responsibility for his detention to the new Govt, whilst actually keeping custody/control themselves.
Seems a similar kind of deal....its all just window dressing; we know who is actually in charge.
- like said eugene, to impeach saboteurs of doing their jobs. They will do it later, but It will lose the symbolic impact, and it will be the problem of the new Iraqi governement and not US anymore.
- convince the members of the NATO conference, of joigning him : the early change of sovereignity is a proof of the goodwill of US.
Originally posted by jimmac
Totally a political move on Bush's part. Iraq has become a liability now. Much better to hand it over before it gets any closer to election time. And now if it goes bad it's " someone else's fault ".
Thats silly. Like handing it over 2 days earlier would make a difference in Bush's political campaign. But since you apparently believe this, can I now expect you to refrain from pointing any fingers at Bush for what happens in Iraq from here on out?
This is simply a tactic to throw off possible saboteurs as someone said. Sure things planned for the 30th may still happen and may still have devastating effects, but the symbolic nature will be robbed from them. Handing over early and in relative secrecy helped protect the officials involved.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Bush made it two days earlier for two reasons :
- like said eugene, to impeach saboteurs of doing their jobs. They will do it later, but It will lose the symbolic impact, and it will be the problem of the new Iraqi governement and not US anymore.
- convince the members of the NATO conference, of joigning him : the early change of sovereignity is a proof of the goodwill of US.
I think powerdoc, and Eugene are right . . . and it was probably a good idea.
One side effect, however, for the Repubs, is that it takes all the political wind ot of the ritualized 'handover' process . . . . can't be used as much for political perception points -not such a photo-op.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Can you be a little bit sovereign, wouldn't that be like being a little bit pregnant?
a little-bit pregnant usually results in a Stillbirth.
It featured a oversized U.S. tank shaped like a rounded hill, with a US flag on the rear, Perched on the top of the tank, like the king of the hill, was an arab, holding a steering wheel, attached to thin air.
The new "Iraqi" "administration" may even impose martial law if the security situation doesn't improve. And, there are 14 permanent USAF bases being constructed in Iraq right now. And what is angering those people the most is that Iraq is being sold off, piece by piece, at bargain basement prices to western corporations. As one Iraqi woman was saying in an interview, and she believed that she was speaking for most Iraqis: its better to be under a tyrant thats Iraqi, than any foreign outsider Iraq is getting neither sovereignty, nor democracy. And the Iraqi people know it. Does the Bush administration believe they are stupid, (maybe just because they are Iraqis)?
How long are we going to wait until this fiasco backfires on us, like for example, 9-11? As with a big earthquake in California, it is never a question of if it is going to happen, but when. And when it does, whichever US administration is in office will use it to start another series of invasions/wars/police actions/clampdowns etc. somewhere else, while tightening the ratchet at home a few more notches.
The benefactors from war are those who eternally profit from warmongering, and we all know how much the US economy is vested in warmaking all around the planet, not just in "defending America", both from real and imaginary foes. It is an unfortunate fact of life that that such a big portion of the American economy has to rely on conflict and unrest for its continued existence, and there is little we can do about it as so many peoples' 401Ks are dependent on it. But when we perpetually implement "untrained alpha-dog" types of foreign policy decisions in the manner of a recidivist criminal or junkie, they will always come back to haunt us, without fail, like bad "international karma". To quote John Laroquette, one definition of insanity is the "repetition of the same action expecting a different result".. If those at the top, responsible for the ongoing series of similar ghastly foreign policy decisions that are making the world a worse place day by day are not insane, then the only other explanation is that they must be fully aware, and truly evil.
America deserves better. So do the long suffering peope of Iraq.
http://evilorstupid.blogspot.com/200...d_archive.html