http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=11286

Cunning US, moving things forward ahead of time in order to avoid all hell breaking loose on June 30. At least now the Iraqi people have the democracy they deserve, even though there are some nasty sorts looking to wreak total havoc there. Good luck to them.

------------------
This post was proudly brought to you by KegZ™ - Now with 38% more Spam

[This message has been edited by KegZ (edited June 28, 2004).]

I think it was a good idea to hand over the power to Iraq before June 30 when exeryone expected it. But I don't think, like many others, the transfer will be a smooth one.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)

--------@%

The Massassi JO/JA Single Player contest info

I don't know - I don't know anyone who thinks the transfer will be a smooth process. But as long as it was done. I think it was a good move as well too, to do it a couple of days early. Though I fell Bush will get backlash from liberals as this being a 'political move.'

Good move... Obviously there's no guarantee it will change the plans of those who were looking at the 30th, but it cant really hurt.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

It's step one towards getting out of Iraq, however that day is still far far off. The U.S is still in charge, without a doubt.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

As long as the US is in charge, nothing will change.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereignty

Sounds like the Iraqis are in charge to me. We're just there to help improve security until (hopefully) they can do something about it themselves.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

These things shouldn't be rushed, even if morons at home are screaming thier heads off about things they know nothing about. We don't want to deal with another maniac in ten more years. I hope they know what thier doing. Still, I hope for the best. Thses are very delicate matters.

"Iraqis" are not in charge. Iraq is not a democracy. This is just to make it feel less like an 'occupation' and more like an 'invitation'.
They are just putting an Arab face on the front, nothing is going to change in Iraq because of this.

The Iranian response to this was:


And yes, this is a step in the right direction, but it is only a little step, not a leap.

A BBC survey of Iraqis found that 56% of Iraqis thought that invading was the wrong thing to do, compared to 38% that thought it was right. 40% support the presence of coalition troops with 55% wanting them out.

A total of 16% of those questioned thought the US-led coalition was a liberating force, 10% described it as a "peacekeeping force" but 51% see it as an "occupying force" and 18% as a force that "exploits Iraq".

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3847023.stm

I smell civil war.

------------------
Fire Pretty - Graz's Armoury - (That's my blog...)

The Soviet Bunker - (That's my forum...)

"Thou shalt not steal. (Because the government doesn't like competition!)"

That's precisely one of the reasons theyve been hesitant abuot handing it over or having a popular democracy. Youve got a 60% Shia majority in Iraq, who were for a long time udner the previous regime institutionally persecuted and oppressed by the Sunni minority in political power.

So then make a popular democracy and suddenly you have a very ripe and probable forum for the Shia majority to do exactly the same thing, democratically. A very possible institution of the Tyranny of the Majority that FireFox is so fond of referencing.

That and throw in firebrands like the man with his al-Mahdi army [basically claiming himself as the messiah] who has a huge incredibly fundamental reactionary influence and popularity among the unwashed masses as it were.

Then top it off with people who for generations [at least one] haven't had really any sort of self-determination or sovereignty or free will, more or less having had it beaten out of them so to speak. Then suddenly give them power and sovereignty and expect them to know what to do with it, how to govern themselves, how to make decisions..

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"If all those usefull inventions that are lyable to abuse, should therefore be concealed, there is not any Art or Science, which might be lawfully profest."
-John Wilkins, Mercury, or the Secret and Swift messenger, shewing how a man may with privacy and speed Communicate his thoughts to a Friend at any distance (London, 1641)
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Clever move by Bush and co., now they won't have to worry on the 30th if they'll be able to make it to Spider-Man 2 or not.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

It's up the Iraqis to learn.

Yes, they might make mistakes, but it is their mistake to make.

Historically it is how pretty much every country in the world has developed, through coups and revolutions through mistakes and corrections. A government comes to power, it starts to deviate from what the people want or need, and it is overthrown and a new government comes to power. Repeat. For each repetition, the values and norms are overhauled and the country progresses.

The problem is that America is trying to 'accelerate' this process.

That was the case in Vietnam too

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Uhh, Vietnam was totally different. They were in charge from the get go. We were just protecting them from the North.

An excellent point. I may have my wires crossed here but wasn't the handover scheldualed before the 30th, then moved back to the 30th and is now slightly closer than the 30th?
More importantly:
American industries are "rebuilding Iraqs economy"
American Troops are "protecting Iraq"
The UN, spearheaded by America are in charge of the recruitment, training and deployment of Iraqs new army.
I might be wrong as I've not been following events in Iraq as relgiously as I was a few months ago - I'm busy rotting my mind with senseless web games, such as www.mechg.com

------------------

------------------
"Just remember -- No matter how bad things get, Northern Minnesota will always be there"
-- Garrison Keeler

Many people don't understand that the two diffrent people in that land actually take thier religons VERY seriously and aren't to hot about all this acceptance crap. Sure there are some liberal Mulsiums who buy into that acceptane junk, but I guarantee that if any of the hard core dudes ever had any of those liberal Muslims in thier hand's the liberal's would have thier heads on spikes preety quick. Like I say, these people are hard core. There are two diffrent Muslums in Iraq, I think, the Suni's and some other kind, but they don't get along too well, so it's a very delicate process to get these people under one government with out one group being opressed.

Sunnis and Shias.

The conflict between them is not 'religious' per se, they are not really 'denominations' of Islam.
They both believe in the same Qu'ran and accept the same prophet and worship the same God.

Muhammed (saws) in his time gathered quite a following and had quite a lot of power politically. No-one believed him to be divine, no-one thought he'd live forever, but they did surprisingly little organisation for his death. When he died, there was a lot of confusion about who his successor would be. Political successor, that is, not religious. No-one else claimed that they were a prophet of God simply because they were related to Muhammed (saws).
But two different factions spawned, each believing in a different heir of Muhammed (saws). But they are both Muslims.

It is not like the Catholic vs. Protestant conflict.

There is very little you can do with the Shia Sunni conflict. There is no theological debate behind it, only perhaps a genealogical one.

Ya, well that I don't know mcuh about. How ever I do know that it is difficult to get them to live together.

Don't forget the Kurds. Now you have a possible three-way cluster****.

------------------
Massassi: We don't debate. We *****.

And that's more or less the case right now. Iraq is sovern and US troops are there to keep order

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

We so could have won Vietnam sevral times no problem, but as usual polotics got in the way. I say after you start a war win it and then worry about politics. Bleh.

You do understand that Vietnamese government was in power against the will of most, arguably the vast majority, of the Vietnamese people?

The guys we were protecting cancelled the election because they thought the communists would win. It wasn't exactly our finest attempt at proliferating democracy.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Yes, but the Kurds aren't just a problem exclusive to Iraq. The Kurds are a problem everywhere. I don't know what to do with them. I'm dubious of giving them their own state.
Look what happened with Israel.
I think trying to incorporate them into their respective countries is a solution, but it is difficult.



Vietnam was the only conflict where the Americans did the right thing: they pulled out.
Politics doesn't 'stop' as soon as war starts.

Mort-hog, I am interested in knowing why you think this way. Sure, you gave some good information in the polls, but it didn't tell me much about how or why you think nothing has changed. Is it that you think the United States is still strong-arming Iraqi leaders into making the decisions they would have them make? If so, what makes you think so, or where did you get this information? I'm interested, not trying to argue.

I'd much like to know the particulars about how coalition forces and the Iraqi government are cooperating or what the heiarchy is since the power shift.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

Do you think the Iraqi government is going to be able to do anything that would go against American will?

Yeah. Unless it's something like create more WMD's or try to attack us or something. Still, most of the time counteries use something called diplomacy. BTW democracy is not always the best form of government. Diffrent kinds for diffrent people. I think we are being arrogent to assume that democracy will work for every kind of people.

[This message has been edited by Obi_Kwiet (edited June 29, 2004).]

The point I was making before as well is that Iraq is still a dictatorship.

Until the elections in January (?), Iraq is not a democracy. I'll be very interested to see how involved America get into the elections. If Iraqi opinion continue in the same trend (once again I implore you all to read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3847023.stm ) some very interesting parties could get a lot of support.
I think socialists might get a lot of support from all the new poor people, and anti-Americanism is probably going to be an easy card to play, as it is in many other countries. "We will get the Americans out quickly" will probably be the immediate policy of most parties. I think religious fundementalist groups could gather quite some support, if there aren't too many of them to split the votes, but considering the Ba'ath party were very liberal I don't know how popular Iranian-style Islamic rule would be simply as people won't be used to it.

I'd be interested to see if the Americans allow some 'undesirable' party to take office. Or even run. I wonder if the Ba'ath party can run.

But anyway, this event is only really a small pebble-sized stepping stone towards the elections.
That is the interesting one.