0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 11:09 am
Gee, gels, don't get so excited. It's only one opinion. Wink
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 11:27 am
Oh, well ..... ok then ................
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 03:17 pm
Not good ... not good


Quote:
INTERNATIONAL 02.21.2004 Saturday

Shiite Leader Sistani Threatens Intifada Against U.S.

Iraqi Shiite Leader Seyyid Ali Al-Sistani yesterday warned that he would call for an intifada (uprising) if American soldiers stayed in Iraq after the handover of power on June 30, 2004. He also insisted that there should be a significant role for the Shiite in the future administration of the country, as they make up the majority of the population.

Sistani spoke to the German magazine Der Spiegel and said: "The U.S. presence in Iraq should not be prolonged. The Iraqi public knows how to act. If the U.S. presence is drawn out longer than necessary, I will call for an intifada." The necessary posters reportedly have already been printed and are awaiting distribution to every corner of the country.

Sostani's comments come in the wake of Commander of the Coalition Ground Forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's statement on Wednesday that American troops might continue their deployment in Iraq for years to come and U.S.-Appointed Administrator to Iraq Paul Bremer's request yesterday that coalition members to maintain a presence in Iraq until the end of December 2005.

The U.S. administration has reportedly dispensed with the idea of having pre-elections before June 30 and is currently working to expand the Iraqi Temporary Governing Council (TGC). The Washington Post has reported that as part of the TGC enlargement the number of council members would be increased from 25 to 125. The newly expanded TGC would then continue its investigations until the national elections.

'America Gave up Pre-Elections'

Sistani noted that the United Nations (UN) has charged the U.S. with the administration of Iraq until June 30, 2004, and he reported that the UN should monitor whether power will be handed over to the Iraqis. Sistani also demanded that preparations for the elections be finished as soon as possible. Additionally, he requested a guarantee from the U.N. that the elections would not be delayed and that Constitution would be based on the Sheri'a.



02.21.2004
Foreign News Services
Istanbul


Source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 03:41 pm
Gets more interesting as we approach June 30. I wonder what Bush is going to try to sell next?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 04:36 pm
"he requested a guarantee from the U.N. that the elections would not be delayed and that Constitution would be based on the Sheri'a." from Ge's posting above.

Sistani is playing everyone.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 04:38 pm
I don't think the UN has that much influence in Iraq. We shall see.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 04:44 pm
I wonder how long it would take for Saddam to restore power if we released him and gave him some better weapons than we did before...

That would keep Sistani in line.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 04:55 pm
That has more credibility than anything this administration has come up with. That'll certainly stop the "terrorist" attacks on their own people - me thinks, and "peace" will once again return to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 05:14 pm
So, what are you saying, c.i.? You think the US erred? LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 05:31 pm
BIG TIME. Wink
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 05:49 pm
And even further through the looking glass:Iraq now contemplating annexing Kuwait?
Quote:
Iraq may lay claim to Jordan, Kuwait in future

Sat Feb 21, 8:44 AM ET


BAGHDAD (AFP) - The president of the Iraqi interim Governing Council said that Baghdad could consider territorial claims over neighbouring Jordan and Kuwait in the future.


"We need our Arab brothers around us. Now, we cannot discuss this matter with them at all, but in the future, we'll see," said Mohsen Abdel Hamid, in response to a question from a Baghdad consultative council member.

Consultative council member Shaza Hadi al-Obeidi had asked Hamid about the status of territory, once part of Iraq (news - web sites), such as Jordan and Kuwait at an extraordinary meeting of the 37-member consultative council.

The session was also attended by three representatives of the US-led coalition and journalists.

Members of the council, which reflects Baghdad's majority Shiite Muslim population, were elected by district committees across the capital on July 1.

Iraq invaded Kuwait under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in 1990 and annexed the oil-rich Gulf kingdom as a 19th Iraqi province, before his troops beat a hasty retreat seven months later in the US-led 1991 Gulf war.

During British rule after the First World War, two branches of the Hashemite royal family had governed Iraq and Jordan.


I seem to recall spending six long months in that litterbox because Iraq had invaded Kuwait. So now the US (through its puppets) is going to do the same thing? Someone has been paying far more attention to Krauthammer than he deserves!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 05:59 pm
History repeats itself in curious ways. Wink
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 08:00 pm
Aw come on guys. If the Iraqi interim Governing Council was a puppet of the US, do you really think it is on the US' agenda to talk about annexing two countries? At the same time that they are talking about trying to get out of Iraq as soon as it is feasible to do so?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 08:06 pm
Actually, it makes a certain amount of sense. It certainly falls into line with the neo-con plans for elargeing the US' sphere of influence.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 08:14 pm
The way the Brits report on Iraqi responses to the probable delay in elections:

"
Iraqis react to poll delay call
Iraqi leaders and the US-led administration are analysing their next steps after the UN ruled out elections before the US hands over power.
Iraq's top Shia cleric, who wants direct elections, was on Friday quoted as saying any delay must only be short.

In Najaf, several thousand people took to the streets demanding elections.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on Thursday said it was not feasible to hold elections in Iraq before the transfer of power on 30 June.


Guarantees

Mr Annan's comments backed Washington's position on elections in Iraq.

The US wants to create an interim Iraqi government using caucus-style voting, but the majority Shia have called for direct elections.

Giving his response, Mr Annan said the UN was working on recommendations on how to form an interim government until elections can be held.


But he also stressed that the transfer of power to an interim Iraqi administration should go ahead as planned by the end of June - a position confirmed by Paul Bremer, the chief US administrator for Iraq.
The White House had asked the UN to come up with proposals for Iraq's political future after the leader of the Shia Muslims, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, objected to its plans.

Ayatollah Sistani, in an interview published by the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Friday, said he would only accept a short delay.

The ayatollah, who submitted written responses to Der Spiegel's questions, insisted on a new UN resolution that would give clear guarantees of "no further postponements of the elections".

Demands

Several hundred Shias demonstrated in Ayatollah Sistani's base of Najaf on Friday to support his call for quick elections, although they did not explicitly demand a vote before 30 June.

Other Iraqi figures have made it clear they are against any delay.

A representative of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr dismissed any postponement of elections.

"We demand elections and insist on this demand," Sheikh Nasr al-Saedi said.

However, some members on Iraq's Governing Council have appeared to accept Mr Annan's findings.

"Elections are a must but it is impossible right now," Nasser al-Chadechi, a Sunni Arab, told the Associated Press.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3507173.stm"

Published: 2004/02/20 16:20:08 GMT
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2004 09:09 pm
Big Trouble
If the US & UK get the Shi'ites moving against them in an armed struggle, the sheeit will really hit the fan.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 07:05 am
Why not just send Karl Rove to broker a compromise or better yet, Kathryn Harris to steward the elections...


Quote:
Posted on Sun, Feb. 22, 2004

Bremer seeks extension for Iraq elections

By Edmund Sanders

LOS ANGELES TIMES

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The civil administrator for Iraq suggested Saturday that it could take as long as 15 months for elections to be held in Iraq, a timetable squarely at odds with that of the nation's leading Shiite cleric.

In an interview with the Arab television network Al-Arabiya, Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer said Iraq needs to build up the proper infrastructure to support elections.

"These technical problems will take time to fix," he told the Dubai-based network.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, in written remarks released Saturday, said the United States has been "stalling" and failing to take the necessary steps to prepare for elections before its scheduled June 30 transfer of power to an Iraqi transitional government.

Sistani, who had pushed for spring elections, said in written remarks that he would agree to a brief delay, but only with "clear assurances" to protect against additional postponements.

In written responses to questions from the German magazine Der Spiegel, he also called for a new U.N. resolution to set a firm election date that Iraqis can count on.

On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan confirmed that a team of U.N. electoral experts who visited Iraq this month had concluded that the nation would not be ready for elections until the end of the year or early 2005.

The new statements by Bremer and Sistani underscore the challenges faced by the United Nations as it attempts to broker a compromise and bring stability to the region.

In his TV remarks, Bremer said "the U.N. estimates somewhere between a year and 15 months" will be needed before elections can be held.

Bremer's comments come at a particularly sensitive time.

Already, many Iraqi Shiite leaders are suspicious that U.S. officials want to delay elections because they fear the Shiite majority -- constituting an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's population -- will take control of the government.

"This will raise even more doubts and suspicions about delays," said Hamid Bayati, a official with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite party.

In ruling out elections prior to June 30, the U.N. experts cited security concerns and the current lack of voter rolls or election laws.

Sistani, in criticizing delays, made his most in-depth public comments about how he would like to see Iraq rebuilt.

Sistani said any transitional government that serves before full elections should be strictly limited in its authority.

The temporary body "should not be able to make important decisions related to future policies of the country," he said.

In other developments Saturday, U.S. military officials said an Iraqi translator was killed and four American soldiers were wounded when their convoy was attacked with small-arms fire in a morning ambush south of Iskandariyah.

In the town of Ad-Dujayl, a soldier with the 4th Infantry Division was killed Friday when he was struck by a vehicle while walking alongside the highway to assist a truck that had broken down, authorities said.

Both incidents are under investigation.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 07:44 am
From above quoted material:

Quote:
In other developments Saturday, U.S. military officials said an Iraqi translator was killed


I wonder if this 'translator' was one of those Iraqi university students hired by the Brits, wearing the blue helmet which clearly would identify him to any and all snipers?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 08:15 am
Changing hearts and minds....and behavior

If the US has to tolerate some degree of outsourcing of backroom support services, and it is changing people in India, then it would work in Iraq also. If the country can be stabilized sufficiently to allow this to happen. Iraqis are supposed to be amongst the best educated of people of that region. So why not?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2004 08:36 am
This could get ugly, and it is difficult to imagine how that's going to be avoided.

Sistani may be bargaining - taking a position that X must be delivered, but actually willing to settle for somewhat less. He knows there is a US election coming, we'll assume. If he's making bottom line demands, then the two sides will not reconcile well.

The US will not want to leave Iraq soil, certainly not the neocon contingent, their vision for middle east presence/control being central to why the US is there in the first place. Nor will this White House, so concerned with appearances and electibility, want to deal with events and commentary which promote the notion of failure continuing, and certainly they won't want instability and deaths increasing - it's probably their great vulnerability as it will continue to highlight their serious midjudgment and continue to point towards their deceits or exaggerations.

One suspects that the Pentagon too would wish to maintain a significant military footprint there (various military people have stated this to be so) for obvious strategic reasons.

Assassination of Sistani would have potentially distastrous consequences, even if it were portrayed and propaganized to appear the work of internal groups, as is predictable. So that seems quite unlikely.

One could conclude that the US will draw out, as long as they can manage, negotiations and interim steps, at least until the election. If they succeed at this, many White House hearts will be at ease, regardles of what might follow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.23 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 06:52:44