"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

That sounds reasonable, ci. I hope they get it.

Ahhh Blatham:

Your self admitted ability to attract bill collectors and women is only exceded by your tenacity :wink:

04 June 2004


The Foreign Minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, said last night that a draft resolution before the UN Security Council on the future of his country does not go far enough to guarantee the return of full sovereignty after 30 June. Nor, he said, does it properly clarify the future relationship between the new interim government and foreign troops.

Addressing members of the Security Council in New York, Mr Zebari said that the new government, selected earlier this week, will insist that the UN pass an "unambiguous resolution that underlines the transfer of full sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their representatives".

He made his appeal just hours after Iraq's influential Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, gave his nod to the new government. But the Ayatollah also emphased the need for a clear expression of Iraq's new sovereignty from the Security Council.
Lamenting that the interim government was not elected and lacks "legitimacy", Mr Sistani said, "it is hoped that the government will prove its efficiency and integrity." Referring to Mr Zebari's visit to New York, he urged the government to get "a clear Security Council resolution enabling the Iraqis to restore full sovereignty".

Several key members of the Council have been pushing for rewriting of the latest draft, unveiled by Britain and the United States this week. France, Germany and Russia have all voiced concern that that the text still does not spell out how sovereign Iraq will be.

Debate is starting to focus on the relationship between new government and the US-led force, which would only leave Iraq after direct elections and the completion of a new constitution at the end of next year. London and Washington have, until now, suggested that such issues - for example, when and if Iraq could refuse to participate in a military operation - should be dealt with in separate side letters, outside the resolution.

Mr Zebari told the Council it was important for the troops to remain in Iraq for now to prevent bloodshed and chaos. But he added the Iraqi government "must have a say in the future presence of these forces and we urge that this be reflected in this resolution".

A senior diplomat close to the Council said members are still some way from agreeing on a text. British sources indicated, however, that London was willing to revise the text further to accommodate French and German concerns in the hope of reaching a consensus on the resolution soon.

The wrangling inside the Council was about "how much power the US and the UK are really giving up and how it is distributed," the diplomat said.

The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, signalled his own reservations about any provision to give a final say over the operations of the multinational force to Iraq. "You can't use the word 'veto'," he insisted in an interview with the Middle East Broadcasting Center. "There could be a situation where we have to act and there may be a disagreement, and we have to act to protect ourselves or to accomplish a mission."

France's President, Jacques Chirac, sent a message that his government needed to "affirm and confirm the full sovereignty of the Iraqi government, particularly in the military domain."

John Negroponte, the next US ambassador to Iraq, acknowledged that the text may need "fine tuning". But he added that the "full exercise of sovereignty will be restored to the people and government of Iraq by June 30. I don't have any doubt about that."
4 June 2004 22:55

____________________________________________________________



First of all I resent the accusation that I don't want Iraq to have a good country just so that I would be justified in griping about it. That is not true.

Second, no one has said that the military must leave (I sometimes think that things couldn't be worse but I am only one person who does not always know the answers and in no way represent the whole "left".), that was not the point. The point for the last time by me is that Bush lied again when he said that Iraq will have full soverignty on July 1st. They will not have control over our troops that will be stationed in their country. As in the article that I posted up above states, Powell said that Iraq will not have the power to veto the coalition. So Bush lied, it is that simple.

Lastly, things are not ever as simple as the Bush administration like to make out. Pay attention to the parts of the article up above where the text is bolded.

I hope that everything eventually works out in Iraq for the Iraqi citizens and that the US gets out there lock stock and barrel and we start minding our own business here at home.

to blatham ::::::::::::::::::

the only thing bush can do is bring back the troops in time, before a big disaster happens.

and the only thing iraq can do is have a civil war.

vlad

Excerpt from From MoveOn.org
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi recently offered something all too
rare in Washington these days -- straight talk about President Bush's
Iraq policy and his questionable leadership.

Immediately President Bush's attack dogs went into action, seeking to
intimidate her and other like-minded Representatives into silence.
But straight talk should never be silenced or shamed. We've
got to let our Representatives know we support Congresswoman Pelosi,
and we must encourage them to follow her lead.

There are two important things that you can do to help. Please take a
few minutes today to write a letter to the editor of your local paper
applauding Nancy Pelosi and encouraging your Representative to offer
honest criticism of the Bush administration whenever it is merited.

Please let us know you're calling, at:

http://www.moveon.org/callsupport.html?id=2913-1999855-70gX2fuMLc7FNYpboeJLzw

President Bush and his surrogates in Congress have been trying to bully
the American people into silence over his failed policies in Iraq and
elsewhere. They're saying it's somewhow unpatriotic and even dangerous
to criticize the President during wartime.

After President Bush came to Capitol Hill for a pep rally before
Republican members of Congress (where he refused to acknowledge any
questions about Iraq), Congresswoman Pelosi said that his handling of
the war in Iraq shows "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment
and experience, in making the decisions that would have been necessary
to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and
the cost to our taxpayers." [1]

House Majority leader Tom DeLay responded that "her words are putting
American lives at risk," and that she has "a responsibility to the
troops and to this nation to show unity in this time of war." [2]

In 1918, Theodore Roosevelt said, "To announce that there must be no
criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President,
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
treasonable to the American public."

Tom DeLay has it backwards. We've seen that unquestioning acceptance
by too many in Congress and in the media can lead the country down a
dangerous pathway. Let's support leaders like Nancy Pelosi who are
willing to tell it like it is.

!
The BushCult can repeat Full Sovereignty a thousand times or more it still comes to this:

Full Sovereignty?

Throughout the spring, as hundreds died in the spiraling conflict, as Regime bosses applied their hardcore "anti-terrorist" tortures to innocent bystanders raked up in their occupation nets, as Regime mouthpieces prated endlessly of "liberation" and "sovereignty," Bush viceroy Paul Bremer was quietly signing a series of edicts that will give the United States effective control over the military, ministries -- and money -- of any Iraqi government, for years to come, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Bremer has placed U.S.-appointed "commissions" made up of Americans and local puppets throughout Iraqi government agencies; the ministers supposedly in charge weren't even told of the edicts. These boards "will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens," the Journal reports. Any new Iraqi government "will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials."


Earlier Bremer edicts laid the Iraqi economy wide open to ruthless exploitation by Bush-approved foreign "investors"; dominance of such key sectors as banking, communications -- and energy -- is already well advanced. The latest dictates aim to ensure that this organized looting goes on, no matter what kind of makeshift "interim government" the United Nations manage to piece together. Bush's plans to build a Saddamite fortress embassy in Baghdad and 14 permanent military bases around the country are designed to provide the knee-breaking "security" for these lucrative arrangements

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/21/120.html

radikal

I think it is obvious that the Bush administration is pulling another fast one.

However in the end I don't think it will matter if they can manage to pull it off. I imagine the American voting public will be glad that it is over and ended fairly well. All the ugly realities will just be put down as the "left nick pickers" who want just want to paint the situation in a bad light in order to make the acting president look bad.


I think the smartest thing for democrats to do regarding Iraq is to lay off the criticism and let the events do the talking for a while. There is still a while to go before the election after July 1st and if everything did not work out as peachy king as they are trying to make it seem it will, then we will have something to use as examples. On the other hand if everything does work out then that is a good thing for the Iraqi's and will have made the whole excercise worth it despite the lies and the abuses and the corruptness of the whole thing.

The problem with that is that the whole country has fallen into the administration's obsession with Iraq that it would leave a huge hole in the topics to discuss.

revel

I don't think the Dems down there (or ANYONE down there) ought to lay off on criticism. I do think dems ought to be very careful to get it right, and to avoid rumor and innuendo, but the criticism ought to be maintained if and where it is valid.

The country has fallen into the Iraq situation, true. The consensus seems to be that this is the senior factor as the election approaches (which goes a long way to explaining the 'full sovereignty' pretence/lie). But one of the key reasons that the country has fallen into the matter is because of the discrepancies between statements and revelations - about WOMD, about ease of war and post-war, about the competence of those in charge, about the goodness of America's purposes and behaviors, the value of having a 'resolute' leader when he's wrong, etc. That sort of hubris really must stay in the sights of any citizen who wants government with integrity regardless of party affiliation.

to all ::::::::::::

i repeat my previous statement;

all that bush can do in iraq is pull out before a great military disaster happens. that is to say a military withdrawl is all that bush can do which is any good.

all that iraq can do is have a civil war. no matter what bush or anyone else ever does. yes; even if the UN makes a three state conclusion for iraq, even that shall result in a civil war. the 60% shia majority has been made into a false minority for too long. the kurdish nation must be free.
there is no other way in iraq. it is very sad, but it is very true.

vlad

blatham, sometimes all we have to go on is rumor and innuendo and just vague doomsday feelings.

Right now we are a point where we have to wait and see if the coalition run things after the partial withdrawl or if the Iraqi's do. We have to wait and see what happens with the new UN resolution and what the coalition is willing to put in writing and what it is not. I am starting to feel like things might have a slight chance of working out despite the fumbling of the Bush administration and their lies and all the rest. I think it will be the Iraqis themselves who will push the US out and form their own government eventually.

I think we have to still keep talking about the lies of why we went to Iraq, we have to keep talking about prison abuse and we have to keep holding the administration acountable and not let them get away with anything without fussing about it. But I think we should encourage and let the turnover process try to work for the good of the Iraqi's. At least that is how I am starting to feel.

I do believe that the left wing is beginning to panic.

They are deathly afraid that, despite some suicide bombings in the regular places(Baghdad, Najaf) that the majority of the Iraqi people desperately want security and peace. There are about 7,000 towns and villages in Iraq. The news media only reports on three or four of these towns and villages.

As the Prime Minister of the Interim Government, Mr. Allawi, said to his people

"Your government sees that only the restoration of security and the safeguarding of citizens' dignity, honor and money will allow us to successfully proceed on the political track and ACHIEVE A TRANSFER OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY."

Apparently, the Iraqi prime minister thinks that the acheivement of full sovereignty will entail a process.

If the Iraqi situation gets better in the coming months, and the economy continues to improve, the worst fears of the left will be realized. President Bush will be re-elected.

I will make a predicition.

Just as the protests about Viet Nam almost totally ceased after there was a declaration that there would be no more draft in 1973, so will the "protests" against our involvement in Iraq since the "protests" are only attempts to denigrate President Bush before the election and, for the large majority of the American voters, have no real meaning.

I'm sorry, Mr. Hinteler, I don't read German. I don't understand what you are saying.

Translation:

"rool", "?"

Is there a hidden message in Walter Hinteler's previous posts? All I saw was rolling eyes and a quesiton mark, how is that German?

Anyway, I could care or less what the right thinks about the left and/or our reasons for protesting the Iraq war and quesitoning the reconstruction and turnover.

Might be, eveything unknown-suspicious and/or from me is to be considered as German by Mr. "the seventh month" :wink:

revel- Mr. Hinteler wrote, in a post he has now deleted, as a response to my question, that the eyes meant "rool".

I responded, as you may have read

"rool"???

The reason I responded in that manner is that I am astonished that someone who cannot spell the word "roll" and instead writes "rool" feels competent to comment on complex foreign policy which, in the final analysis, are approved by US Citizens who elect US Representatives who write legislation.

If Mr. Hinteler cannot understand my post. I will simplify it for him. I do not think that most comments need simplification since many of the discussions are not amenable to simplification. But, for Mr. Hinteler:

The left wing in the USA( I am sure you know who and what that is, Mr. Hinteler) does not welcome ANY news, whether it is news from Iraq or the economic gurus in the USA that is NOT NEGATIVE.

I am convinced( although I am sure that it is a small number) that there are some on the left who are so partisan and so filled with hate for the present Administration in the USA, they are heartened when they hear that ten or fifteen American soldiers were wounded or killed in Iraq.

Any news that can be used to denigrate George W. Bush is welcome to the far left because they are immoral partisans.

Is that clear, Mr. Hinteler? I do hope that you understand my position now.

Yessir, clear, sir!

BTW: a) I didn't delete my post - it's still there
b) I could start now to comment that, as you did with my typo.
c) Would you kindly check the order/time/number of my responses?

Mr. Hinteler:

YOur comment about the ninth month shows that you are not familiar with good literature, even good German Literature.

The name Septembri is a derivative from Septembrini, one of the main characters from the maginificent novel, The Magic Mountain, by Thomas Mann.

I hope you have read it. I have read it several times. And it is important for me to recount a story for you to show you that you can never really understand the USA as I can never really understand Germany.

There was an American Novelist, Phillip Jackson, author of "The Lost Weekend" among other novels, who idolized Thomas Mann.

When he went to Germany he asked for an audience with Mr. Mann. While he was waiting for Mr. Mann to appear in the parlor, he conversed with Mrs. Mann.

Mrs. Mann said: So you have read my husband's works.

Jackson replied: Yes, all of them.

Mrs. Mann said: Where did you learn German?

Jackson said: I can't read German. I read them in the English translation.

Mrs. Mann replied: I am so sorry, Mr. Jackson but if you can't read German, you really did not read my husband's works because it is nearly impossible to translate all of the nuances accurately.

I hope that you understand the meaning of Mrs. Mann's comment, Mr. Hinteler.

It cuts both ways!!!!

I hate when I have to argue against my side... But what's the deal? Did Walter run over your dog in a previous iteration of user names?

You need to take a break from this kind of posting. It's bad karma.