Jump to content

Bush: "Brown skinned" people deserve freedom too!


Seveneighty

Recommended Posts

Duh, you just find out about newspapers? It's called a tranistional government. Those two words have been the keystone of this whole operation for awhile now.

Glad you finally came aboard!

So, wiseass, who is the new government going to be? I asked this before, you named the current council, which is wrong. So, we're two months away from th ehandover-shouldn't we have a clue as to who will lead the new Iraq by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, A TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT

But the transfer of political governance is a bit of a mystery, too, analysts say. The law of administration calls for an assembly with a president and two vice presidents in a presidential council that will, in turn, choose a prime minister who wields most day-to-day power. The political structure seeks to delicately balance the competing interests of Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

The top positions have yet to be filled because the 275-member National Assembly, which will choose the officials, has yet to be elected. Until elections are held, the interim constitution calls for the government to be "constituted in accordance with a process of extensive deliberations and consultations with cross-sections of the Iraqi people" by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Iraqi Governing Council and possibly the United Nations.

Most analysts expect the Iraqi government on July 1 to be more or less the same Governing Council that exists now -- or an expanded version of it -- which may or may not have a coalition-appointed president or prime minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is modern imperialism. And unfortutely, no nation in the world has the guts to stand up to the US. The constituent states of the UN should have collectively imposed sanctions againts the US for circumventing the UN. Imagine, France, Germany, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Mexico and others, collectively imposing sanctions! That would have brought the US to it's senses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most analysts expect the Iraqi government on July 1 to be more or less the same Governing Council that exists now -- or an expanded version of it -- which may or may not have a coalition-appointed president or prime minister.

So the puppet show will continue. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most analysts expect the Iraqi government on July 1 to be more or less the same Governing Council that exists now -- or an expanded version of it -- which may or may not have a coalition-appointed president or prime minister.

So the puppet show will continue. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

And you figure mob rule should be the flavor of the day Black Dog? How about a moderate like Al Sadir? Or a leftist like Sistanni? You don't just turn this over to an unorganised group of twenty five million people overnight, it would be a death sentence for a million people and would turn the country into something that resembles Taliban ruled Afganistan. Surely you don't think that is the way to go?

Anyhow, read this the other day but couldn't find it earlier. The UN has a guy setting it all out. In effect, it doesn't name the new puppets but gives the plan.

CNN

Grossman said the plan put forward by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi would be led by a president, two vice presidents and a prime minister. It would have a council of ministers to work with the prime minister and an advisory council selected by a national conference.

The government could be assembled by mid-May, Grossman said, with Brahimi recommending who would hold key positions. It would run the country until elections could be held in January 2005.

"The interim government should have all the necessary authorities it needs to lead Iraq into the community of nations, and especially to undertake agreements with economic reconstruction and to prepare the country for elections," Grossman said. "And as I say, given that criteria, we are pleased with the sketch that Ambassador Brahimi provided of his proposed way forward, and believe his idea fits in our vision."

Brahimi is expected to explain the plan in more detail next week before the U.N. Security Council.

Grossman said he has a "high degree of confidence" that the new government will accept the interim constitution drawn up by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, freedom has it's limits.

White House plans limits to Iraq sovereignty

The Bush administration's plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws, according to administration officials.

.

These restrictions to the plan negotiated with Lakhdar Brahimi, the special United Nations envoy, were presented in detail for the first time by top administration officials at congressional hearings this week, culminating in long and intense questioning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday at a hearing on the goal of returning Iraq to self-rule on June 30

Basically the "new" Iraq will be free to do whatever it pleases, so long as it toes the U.S. line. That's freedom?

As for "mob rule", that phrase has long been used as a perjorative for democracy. After Saddam was toppled, the U.S should have immediately turned control over Iraq's civil administration to a U.N.-administered body for a speedy transition to Iraqi authjorities (real Iraqis, not carpetbaggers like Chalabi and others on the G.C).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically the "new" Iraq will be free to do whatever it pleases, so long as it toes the U.S. line. That's freedom?

Toes the line until they got the bugs worked out. Surely, you are not even suggesting that any government Iraq made on it's own would have even the remotest chance of succeeding against all the forces bent on destroying it?

As for "mob rule", that phrase has long been used as a perjorative for democracy. After Saddam was toppled, the U.S should have immediately turned control over Iraq's civil administration to a U.N.-administered body for a speedy transition to Iraqi authjorities (real Iraqis, not carpetbaggers like Chalabi and others on the G.C).

UN, the guys that cut an run at the first sign of trouble? UN, the guys that can't get any troops to commit? UN, guys that won't even stick by their own resolutions? Ya, I can see where that wouldv'e worked pretty good until the bullets started flying. Before you tell us that the bullets would not have stated flying, think about how insurgents have killed every group known to exist within Iraq; Religious, ethnic, UN, Spanish, US, British, Polish, and so on and forth, even Red Cross workers for crying out loud! You think they respect the UN? I think the killing of it's head in Iraq sent a message of non rrespect out far better than any words could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the U.S should have immediately turned control over Iraq's civil administration to a U.N.-administered body for a speedy transition to Iraqi authjorities
UN? Speedy?

If the UN gets involved, it will inevitably turn into a boondoggle. We in Canada tend to support the ideal of the UN and ignore the reality. (In fact, we Canadians seem increasingly to prefer an imaginary ideal to the obvious reality, but that's another story.)

Gaddafi did not get to fly to Europe recently because the UN named Libya to head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Around the world, "temporary" UN refugee camps have a tendency to become permanent. The terms "UN supervision" or "UN administered" are oxymorons. (eg. the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.)

Most Canadians have never had any direct contact with anyone in the UN and so Canadians can maintain a naive idealism . In fact, the UN is the classic illustration of the adage: "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

The UN has gone beyond irrelevancy and is now part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please spare us the drivel until you find the letter that gave flight numbers and targets.

Oh please. There was plenty of evidence that Al Q'aeda was planning some kind of attack on U.S. soil. I would expect the most powerful nation on earth would have the intelligence to at least guard against any probability, and not need an engraved invitation from the terrorists to tell them where and when.

But the real fact is is that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Unlike FDR , who accepted responisbility for Pearl Harbour, or Kenendy, who apologized on National Television for the Bay of Pigs debacle, Bush has weasled out of accepting any of the responsibility and has obfuscated efforts to get to the truth. I guarantee, if it was a democrat president behaving the same way, the right-wingers would be calling for his resignation or public execution. Bush is a weasal.

Toes the line until they got the bugs worked out. Surely, you are not even suggesting that any government Iraq made on it's own would have even the remotest chance of succeeding against all the forces bent on destroying it?

Truth be told, I don't see much hope for Iraq at all. Eiteh rteh U.S. cuts and runs and the country dissovles into chaos and civil war, or the U.S. stays as overlord, locke din a perpetual struggle against Iraqi opposition. Either way, the people lose. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toes the line until they got the bugs worked out. Surely, you are not even suggesting that any government Iraq made on it's own would have even the remotest chance of succeeding against all the forces bent on destroying it?

I've been thinking about this some more, and on the surface, it makes sense. However, there is a few issues that will remain outstanding.

1) Any new Iraqi regime will be saddled with the constitution that was written up by the CPA. Indeed, the new constitution specifically states that that all "laws, regulations, orders and directives" issued by the US occupation authorities will remain in force, even after the June 30 handover. So we're not talking about ironing out a few details, we're talking about shackling future Iraqi governments to a series of preconditions set down by an occupying military power. Does that sound like democracy to you?

2) U.S. forces will remain in the country. Construction is underway on 14 permenant military bases in Iraq which will host up to 100,000+ U.S. troops. This will give the U.S. a strategic strangelhold on the oil supply, niot to mention how the oprescence of that many foreign troops would deter a Iraqi government from stepping out of line.

I dunno...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Any new Iraqi regime will be saddled with the constitution that was written up by the CPA. Indeed, the new constitution specifically states that that all "laws, regulations, orders and directives" issued by the US occupation authorities will remain in force, even after the June 30 handover. So we're not talking about ironing out a few details, we're talking about shackling future Iraqi governments to a series of preconditions set down by an occupying military power. Does that sound like democracy to you?

2) U.S. forces will remain in the country. Construction is underway on 14 permenant military bases in Iraq which will host up to 100,000+ U.S. troops. This will give the U.S. a strategic strangelhold on the oil supply, niot to mention how the oprescence of that many foreign troops would deter a Iraqi government from stepping out of line.

I dunno...

I would agree with you but find it hard to believe that they would have their hands tied like that. If they did, it certainly would be a bogus government. Do you have information on holding National Refferandums to change the constitution?

US Forces to remain in country is only good sense. I am under no illusions that the US sees this as an opportunity to further change the Middle East. After all, it was the reason for going into Iraq in the first place. After WWII, storming Normandy and all, the Allies didn't 'hope' that things would be OK, they stayed and made sure, for fifty years.

Your oil argument here is a completely separate thread I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...