Brilliant, perhaps - but with the moral and intellectual integrity of one who seizes a creature from the wild, until it cannot fend for itself, then releases it with no preparation, saying it "wanted to go".
If you truly love something, let it go. If doesn't come back hunt it down and kill it.
McGentrix wrote:blatham wrote:You can't be serious.
US soldiers, or Brit soldiers, will be tried for criminal acts before an Iraqi court as of July 1? Nope. But that's not really what you said now is it? Suits can be brought, as soon as a stable court system is finished and I am sure that there is not a lack of lawyers in Iraq "the right to try foreigners who break their laws?" was what I said. How is your differentiation relevant to the question of 'full sovereignty" McG?
US soldiers, or any other, will need to provide a search warrant before entering a household as of July 1? They had a warrant to search Chalabi's houose. They also have warrants to search other houses or they have probable cause. Just like in America. Evidence for you claim please.
The Iraqi civil authority will be able to pass any law they deem fit, with or without US agreement come July 1? Within the bounds of their constitution, yes. And again, this is not what you said. "-the right to write their own laws?" was what I said. Again, how is your differentiation relevant to the question of 'full' sovereignty?
The iraqi civil authority will be able to say "Time for US and other forces to now leave. You have two weeks" and that will come to pass as of July 1? I believe Bush and Blair have both said if the provisional government asks them to leave they will. I doubt they will be asked to though as they will be needed to defend and support the new government. I have to assume you are arguing this merely for the sake of arguing. Even the WSJ has written on the edicts and commissions Bremmer has put into place which limit the freedoms of action for any transitional government after June 30 in areas of defence, justice, and communications (and as ebrown points out, oil).
Or there is this...
Limited Iraqi Sovereignty Planned
Coalition Troops Won't Answer to Interim Government, Wolfowitz Says
By Josh White and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 22, 2004; Page A25
The new Iraqi interim government scheduled to take control on July 1 will have only "limited sovereignty" over the country and no authority over U.S. and coalition military forces already there, senior State and Defense officials told Congress this week.
In testimony before the Senate and the House Armed Services committees, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the United States will operate under the transitional law approved by the Iraqi Governing Council and a resolution approved by the U.N. Security Council last October. Both those provisions give control of the country's security to U.S. military commanders.
Whereas in the past the turnover was described as granting total sovereignty to the appointed Iraqi government, Grossman yesterday termed it "limited sovereignty" because "it is limited by the transitional law . . . and the U.N. resolution."
etc
So, in conclusion, Bush's statement at the head of this thread is A LIE.
dlowan wrote:Brilliant, perhaps - but with the moral and intellectual integrity of one who seizes a creature from the wild, until it cannot fend for itself, then releases it with no preparation, saying it "wanted to go".
Guess you'd have to be a battleweary conservative to appreciate the unassailable decision.
If he decided to stay--he'd be criticised.
If he decided to leave-- he'd be criticised.
This way, it's up to someone else. Actually, the people who SHOULD make the decision. And, we've been 'preparing' them as much as we can.
Full civil war for Iraq on June 30.
How the US has helped.
I think its sort of gross to characterize them as mindless animals-- These are thinking people, who can make determinations for themselves, now that their tyrant's boot is off their collective neck.
For goodness sakes. There is no intention to leave or to grant full sovereignty as of June 30. Various military people have been talking for a year now regarding the number and size of military bases they intent for Iraq. Wolfowitz above directly contradicts the 'full sovereignty' statement by Bush. And the agreements placed upon Iraq by Bremmer make the claim a bad joke.
What the US ought to do now is another complex discussion and not the one I raised in this thread. What I spoke to here is the baldly deceitful claim by Bush (and Blair) of 'full sovereignty', and the rather depressing reality that so many of you just let lies like this roll off you as if dishonesty on issues as important as war was no big thing at all.
Nine out of ten people living next door to rocket scientists consider the date and the claim are determined by the electoral calendar. Not by anything like integrity or responsibility.
Blatham. If Iraq has asked us to be their guard dog during the next few months, and if we have to leave if they say so--that is an example of full sovereignty.
They aren't equipped to lead an American force, and we're not going to hand our people over to an inexperienced country.
What makes it not fully sovereign? Full sovereignty means they make their own decisions, and their decisions can't be countermanded by anyone outside the Iraqi gov. Don't you think if they ask us to go and we refuse, IT WON'T BE ALL OVER THE PAPERS?
If the Governing Council reports such a thing, you will have my unqualified agreement. Until then--why is it not full sov. to you? Not because some guy SAID it was limited, but what fact makes it limited to you?
sofia
Please reread what has been posted. Argue with Wolfowitz, argue with the WSJ, argue with anyone you wish. But that won't be me.
Sofia,
The Iraqis are already asking us to leave. This includes most of the governing council hand picked by the Bush administration.
If we give them any kind of real sovreignty on June 30th, US troops will be pulling out in a matter of months.
I don't think this is really going to happen.
In a pig's eye they'll be leaving.
And, if your "mindless animals" reference refers to my comment - I suggest you attend to the spirit of the very disgusted analogy - I do not consider animals mindless, much less the Iraqis.
If the Iraqi Governing Council speaks with one voice and asks the US to leave, and we don't, I will agree. Since sovereignty is passed to them on June 30--we'll have to wait and see what they say on July 1.
Taking into account the Bush 1 debacle with the Kurds, and the fact that it would be best politically (short term) for Bush to pull out--but detractors would have blamed him for everything that happens there for the rest of all time--I actually think being asked to leave would be politically expedient for Bush, and he would do so toot sweet.
Why would he want to stay?
Blatham--wasn't looking for an argument. I was wondering exactly what fact you were hanging your assertion on. Certainly, don't feel compelled to answer if you don't feel like it.
Sofia - in all seriousness, do you really believe that invading a country leaves one with no responsibility for what happens afterwards? That it would be moral for the coalition to just leave, with civil war a foregone conclusion? That, apparently having gone in with no solid strategy for management of what was clearly going to be a complex and dangerous situation, and no apparent exit strategy, it is right to just leave a mess?
Whether we can actually do a lot to change that is, sadly, moot - and this may be exactly what happens with eventual pull-out (I hope I am wrong) - but really, is this your position? I ask morally - not empirically, at this point.
I think it is moral to abide by our word, hand over sovereignty and stay if they say, or leave if they say. I think it is moral to warn them of what we believe will happen--but we cannot stay on against their wishes.
Do you think we should stay, though they tell us to leave?
And the analogy comparing Iraqis to animals, who have no way of thinking for themselves, or making decisions, I thought was just ill-conceived. Iraqis are not that helpless or dependant. I just thought it was a bad analogy.
I personally hope strongly that they ask us to stay, until their gov is established and their military and police are well-trained.
The way I see the longer we stay the longer the Iraqi's are in the line of fire.
With the help of the international community, including peace keepers, the Iraqi's would have a better a shot at forming a government without us there to for the terrorist to shoot at. If the Iraq situation didn't have such a US stamp on it, I don't believe it would have gone so bad as it has.
When will they speak with one voice? Does any country truly ever speak with one voice? Don't we usually go by most or a majority?
In any event, I agree completely with Blatham, the who July 1 thing is one big con to just make it look like we are turing things over to them. Meanwhile we got our hands in the till manipulating things to our own advantage.
I think using phrases such as "forcing them to step up" is sort of condescending to the Iraqi people. Did anyone stop to think that maybe the reason the Iraq's haven't stepped up to the plate to take care of their own security is because they don't want to fight for the US?
When I say "speaks with one voice", I mean the majority decision of the Iraqi Governing Council--not just one or two of them giving private interviews...
I missed the 'forcing them to step up' comment... I'll have to read back.
UN Council, U.S. Try to Define Iraqi Sovereignty
Fri May 21, 7:17 PM ET Add World - Reuters By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain want a new U.N. resolution to call for full sovereignty in Iraq (news - web sites) but have not agreed to a firm date for foreign forces to leave the country, diplomats said on Friday.
At an informal meeting with the 15 U.N. Security Council members on Thursday, U.S. and British officials read from a text of "concepts" for the resolution. The paper was based in part on two earlier rounds of talks this month on Iraq's future when the U.S.-led occupation is to end on June 30.
A council diplomat said the resolution, not yet circulated, was expected to call for a "full transfer of sovereignty" on June 30 to an Iraqi caretaker government, which would then set its own limitations.
Such a government, for example, could not adopt any long-term legislation or agreements, except on a pact to alleviate the country's debt.
Debates have centered at the United Nations (news - web sites) and elsewhere on precisely what sovereignty means in view of a large U.S. military presence and obvious limitations on the government's power. Some ambassadors were concerned that the United Nations would be asked to approve an occupation under another name.
France, Germany and Pakistan had advocated setting a date for a "sunset" clause to end the mandate of a U.S.-led multinational force, which could be extended once a new Iraqi government was elected in January.
But Britain and the United States spoke of periodic reviews for the U.S.-led multinational force, the envoys said. They did not commit themselves to a specific date for ending the mandate and then renewing it, if requested.
"It might be helpful to have a certain period of time in which these things should be reviewed," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told CNN International.
But he said that any time period in the resolution "would be something which would call for a review" rather than a withdrawal of U.S. troops by a certain date.
However, the Bush administration agreed with France, Germany, Russia and others that Iraqi security forces could refuse to take part in operations ordered by U.S. commanders.
Armitage told a Senate committee on Tuesday that Iraqi troops, although under U.S. command, would be permitted to "opt out" of a military operation.
IRAQIS TO CONTROL OIL MONIES
The resolution would also state that Iraq would have control over its oil revenues. But it would keep in place an international advisory board, which audits accounts to encourage investors and donors that their money was being spent free of corruption, the envoys said.
Under a May 2003 Security Council resolution adopted after the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), all proceeds of Iraq's oil and gas sales were deposited into a special account called the Development Fund for Iraq, controlled by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.
Compared to bitter disputes a year ago on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, participants contend there is little acrimony. But this may change when a text is distributed and after U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi reports back on the leaders of an interim government he is attempting to form in consultation with U.S. officials.
"There is some more work to complete before tabling a text," said Britain's U.N. ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, who hosted the meeting at his office.
Visiting Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said in Washington on Thursday that a candidate had already been identified to head the interim government but had not yet accepted. He said Brahimi had also selected a backup.
-------
The US isn't running this 'full or limited, yet full' sovereignty thing alone.
Sofia wrote:I think it is moral to abide by our word, hand over sovereignty and stay if they say, or leave if they say. I think it is moral to warn them of what we believe will happen--but we cannot stay on against their wishes.
Do you think we should stay, though they tell us to leave?
And the analogy comparing Iraqis to animals, who have no way of thinking for themselves, or making decisions, I thought was just ill-conceived. Iraqis are not that helpless or dependant. I just thought it was a bad analogy.
Lol! The analogy simply drew attention to the undeniable fact that, whatever onr may think og th estate of the country pre-invasion, it was not in full civil war.
So - Sofia - you believe that the coalition have NO moral responsibility to Iraq, having invaded it?
Interesting ethics.
Hmm - the UN post is interesting, Sofia.
Sovereignty would not, however, appear to be the name for whatever happens.
I wonder who the poor bastard the UN have in mind is?
