I think an honest appraisal of history would suggest that many of those who enjoyed power, influence, and prosperity in Hitler's regime very much wanted him to remain in power and would have taken him back in a heartbeat. (Especially those being tracked down to put on trial for war crimes.)
I also think history has shown that many of Hitler's top people understood how crazy and evil he was and would have preferred a much moderated and gentler Germany.
I think it is the same in Iraq. You have some truly evil people who want the power, prestige, glory, and prosperity that comes with the privilege inherent in dictatorship and you have some very competent, formerly high level people who see the vision of a free, democratic, Iraq with opportunity for everybody.
It seems the Kurds are unhappy with the way the US selected interim government has no top job for the Kurds even though they represent a large percentage of the population.
Well the Iraqis seem to have taken matters into their own hands and have chosen their own interim leader. And they chose one with pretty impressive credentials too. And we are not interfering. This is as it should be.
Lotta plain-and-simple self-serving, mean-minded rabble-rousing going on ... both in Iraq and here on this thread. I figure that sort of thing doesn't have much future.
hi timber
But nah, it's a demand for truthfulness and integrity. Fox claims above..."and we are not interfering." That's just flat false as a matter of fact.
Quote:But Revel, you have to also understand that those Iraqi's are the ones that had the sweetheart jobs under Hussein and now have no power any longer.
We had a lot of the former Bathist (however you spell that) party in custody and they represented a small percent of the population anyway. The rest of the insurgents are just various groups not happy with the occupation and some newly joined terrorist who followed the US to fight in Iraq because Bush told them to come on.
Anyway, the coalition forces must of had a change of heart about those in the former party because they put some of them back in power to secure the cities that were rebelling against the coalition. Talk about irony.
hi, blatham
Hey, I don't categorically exempt any side from the accusation of rabble rousing ... its pervasive and confined to no one point of view or agenda ... like I said, there's lots of it, and as The Buffalo Springfield said so well so long ago, "Nobody's right when everybody's wrong" ... all factions are interfering with all other factions ... definitely an equal-opportunity thing
timber
Just figured, as you know me well enough to be able to figure the sort of people with whom I chum about (rabble) that you were referring to me and mine. Buffalo Springfield came up here to Vancouver once to headline our 'Be In'. That may or may not have been the afternoon I was hospitalized.
Of course Blatham reads different newspapers than I do.
Are you all better now B?
I see your point, blatham ...
Well, they say if you can remember The 'Sixties, you weren't there. Seems both of us prolly were there ... can't be sure, though
timber
There's a fair bit of photographic evidence I was there. Actually, the old photos from back then are hilarious...me and my buds standing, lounging, hanging out of trees, and always with a few pretty girls about...and in every one of those photos we were very clearly posing for album covers.
fox
I suspect I won't be better until November.
Well I meant your hospitalization, Blatham. I doubt November will cure your other issues.
The UN Security council has cleared the way for an orderly transfer of power on June 30:
Updated: 06:45 PM EDT
U.N. Endorses Anglo-American Plan for Iraq
Security Council OKs Transition Resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS (June 8) -- The U.N. Security Council gave resounding approval Tuesday to a resolution endorsing the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq's new government by the end of June. President Bush said the measure will set the stage for democracy in Iraq and be a ''catalyst for change'' in the Middle East.
Reuters
The U.N. resolution authorizes the U.S.-led multinational force to remain in Iraq to help ensure security but gives the Iraqi government the right to ask the force to leave at any time.
The unanimous 15-0 vote came after a last-minute compromise allowed France and Germany to drop their objections to the U.S.-British resolution, which underwent four revisions over weeks of tough negotiations. Diplomats on the council, which was deeply divided over the war, welcomed the Americans' flexibility.
The compromise gives Iraqi leaders control over the activities of their own fledgling security forces and a say on ''sensitive offensive operations'' by the U.S.-led multinational force - such as the controversial siege of Fallujah. But the measure stops short of granting the Iraqis a veto over major U.S.-led military operations.
The resolution spells out the powers and the limitations of the new interim Iraqi government that will assume power on June 30. It authorizes the multinational force to remain in Iraq to help ensure security but gives the Iraqi government the right to ask the force to leave at any time.
Bush claimed victory before the vote, telling reporters at the Group of Eight summit in Sea Island, Ga., that a unanimous approval would tell the world that the council nations ''are interested in working together to make sure Iraq is free, peaceful and democratic.''
''These nations understand that a free Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change in the broader Middle East, which is an important part of winning the war on terror,'' Bush said.
But his administration lowered expectations of gaining other countries' military support - one of the original hopes behind the resolution. Four members of the Group of Eight summit - France, Germany, Russia and Canada - have said they won't send troops to take the burden off the 138,000 American soldiers and the 24,000 troops from coalition partners.
Nevertheless, the adoption of the resolution will likely buy time for the new Iraqi government, boosting its international stature as it struggles to win acceptance and cope with a security crisis at home.
The interim government - put together by a U.N. envoy, the Americans and their Iraqi allies - hopes the vote will give it a legitimacy that eluded its predecessor, the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. That legitimacy would put it in a better position to curry support among fellow Arab regimes and seek economic help from abroad.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, speaking in New York at the Council on Foreign Relations, predicted it would have a ''positive impact'' on security by removing the perception of the U.S.-led multinational force as an occupying power.
Although the resolution says the interim government will have authority to ask the force to leave, new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi indicated in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell that the force will remain at least until an elected transitional government takes power early next year.
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said many French ideas were incorporated in the final text though Paris would have liked a clearer definition of the relationship between the new Iraqi government and the U.S.-led force.
''That doesn't stop us from a positive vote in New York to help in a constructive way find a positive exit to this tragedy,'' he told France-Inter radio.
Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer, meeting in Washington with Powell, brushed off any suggestion that there might be disagreement between U.S. and Iraqi commanders.
''We are working together,'' al-Yawer told reporters. ''These people are in our country to help us.''
He added: ''We have to think proactive. We cannot afford to be pessimistic.''
In Berlin, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said he hopes ''that now there will finally be a stabilization of the security situation in Iraq.''
France and Germany had been among the sharpest critics in the Security Council of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq.
On Tuesday, Barnier said that during the weeks of negotiations on the resolution ''there was a real dialogue for the first time in this affair.''
''The Americans clearly understood, after months and months of military operations, that there was no way out by arms, by military operations in Iraq,'' the foreign minister said.
''Washington understood that we have to get out of this tragedy by the high road.''
British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the vote ''an important milestone for the new Iraq.''
''We all now want to put the divisions of the past behind us and unite behind the vision of a modern democratic and stable Iraq that will be a force for good not just for the Iraqi people themselves but for the whole of the region and therefore the wider world,'' Blair said in Sea Island.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, who will become U.S. ambassador to Iraq after the handover of power, said the unanimous vote was ''a vivid demonstration'' of broad international support for ''a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq in which there is full respect for political and human rights.''
When I see a comment about American Politics that I think is anywhere near the mark from the European Mr. Hinteler and the Canadian from the third world country called Canada, I will agree with Mr. McGentrix that their opinions are useful.
In asmuch as I have never read any of their comments to be positive about the President or the Administration of the USA, I am of the opinion that they are biased partisans. And you can't learn very much from biased partisans. Am I not correct, Mr. McGentrix.
However, I can be convinced. When Mr. Blatham or Mr. Hinteler can find something good to say about the President or the current Administration, I can be persuaded to change my mind,
Foxfyre: I am very much afraid that you made a mistake in putting that news in a post. It appears to be news which might lead to the success of the coalition in Iraq. Why, that would be tragic for the left wing and Senator Kerry. They might have to turn their attention to the economy, which has gained over a million jobs in the last two months.
The most important comment in your post, Foxfyre, is al-Yawer's comment--
"We are working together. These people are in our country to help us."
How dreadful it must be for the left wing to hear those words----especially if they know that those words are going out over Arabic Television.
actually I think it is good news and this is from a liberal leftist who has nothing good to say about the administration.
Bush is saving face before the election so he went crawling on his hands and knees to UN who once dismissed. It don't matter to me why he went, he went and that is only good thing he has ever done besides at least starting to go to Afghanistan to fight the real war on terror.
As for the economy, it has a long way to go to even catch up with to what it was before Bush took office. You can give all the excuses you want, but that is a fact. furthermore, our country is in debt so bad our grandchildren will have to pay for it. For every new job that has been created there are still as many jobs that are shipped over seas to be outsourced, but hey that is good for the economy or so they say. Health care is outrageous, insurance is a disgrace and the price of food keeps going up and wages keep remaining the same with less benefits. Schools are broke, college scholarships and grants are giving out less and the cost of college is outrageous. So by all means lets get to talking about the economy while the security in Iraq remains the same and we keep having terror alerts messages about new threats against us.
But I am just a downer who just wants paint things in a bad light to get bush out of office, or so you guys would have people believe.
revel, Well stated; there is some progress being seen in Iraq for the transfer, but the 100 percent UN vote doesn't mean much; it's only voice support - no money or military. As you have stated, our economy is still struggling, but the repubs would have you believe our economy is doing just fine - even at a net loss of jobs between 1.2 and 2 million. The stock market is barely above January 1st levels at this point; that must tell most investors something about our economy. Public debt is at an all time high; our kids will be paying most of this. I'm not a downer; I'm a realist. I would love for us to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for our economy to improve so that all those out of jobs will find work. College graduates are having difficulty finding jobs; that's not a good sign of our economy. When our economy does well, our stock portfolio will improve. That's what I want to see in the near future.
If you look for a turd, you will find a turd.
Try looking for something else and you may surprise yourself with what you actually find.
The right wing crowing about how a UN resolution is a success for Iraq is flabbergasting.
You do realize that for over a year, one of the major objections to this war has been a lack of internationtal support? And the typical response has been 'too much foot-dragging, we don't need em' ? And now that it has become apparent we DO need them, we go get support, and basically accomplish a goal held by most liberal protestors to the war?
That's what my homies and I in the English Lit squad call an Ironic Juxtaposition, foo.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn, some folks feel that after having failed numerous times to take advantage of the opportunity to do the right thing, the cabal consisting of France et al finally realizes its time to become part of the solution as opposed to perpetuating the problem. Their recalcitrance and obstructionism, dating back not merely a year or so, but going back all the way to UNSCR 670 and the debate over the Safwan Accords, may at last be coming to an end. I would class this development as a significant accomplishment for US policy.
