Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on June 28, 2004, 01:32:10 am
-
I just heard on the TeeVee that, out of the blue, the handover (however you may see it) has been bumped to... now... :wtf:
this is so new that none of the news sites have any info on it yet, only msnbc and foxnews has even a little banner about it.
-
Eh?
-
Headline(no link) from FOX News:
Full Sovereignty Handed Over to Iraqis Two Days Before Deadline
I guess this makes it official, if they want us gone, we're gone.
-
here we are (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5526174)
well it doesn't realy say that much, but from what I hear it has been moved to today.
-
whowah!?! hey! msnbc is saying it _HAS_ happened!
:_W_T_F_:
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5312795/
-
Strange... not really a bad thing though, is it?
-
not bad but odd as hell
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123961,00.html
not very usefull but more acurate
-
Makes sense. The idea probably was so that if the insurgents had anything planned this would screw up their plans.
-
I have a very bad feeling about this.
-
yeah, I bet there are quite a few nasty people shouting assorted expitatives in arabic right now.
if you combine this with the FCC's ability to track down bad words and a missle system I think we have a solution for the insurgant problem.
-
ROFL bobb
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3845517.stm
To pre-empt the rebels and any terror strikes :p
-
hmmm...
The BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson in Baghdad says bringing the handover forward was a clever tactical move that wrong-footed the Iraqi resistance.
Bremer (right) said he was confident in the future of Iraq
However, he says it actually underlines the US-led coalition's big failure - its inability to stop the violence.
Discuss... :p
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123961,00.html
2 days ahead of schedule too! :D
-
Damnit, you beat me to it by seconds!!
Go Bush!! :D
-
Wow 3 threads about this already
-
Threads merged.
-
yes, ofcourse, sovereignty. all that means is that the CPA still runs the show, but from now on can just deflect any responsibility. Out of thousands or really terrible ideas that Bush has made since the start of the war, this is the one good one. Not good in the objective sense I mean, as in good for the Iraqis or whatever, I mean that its quite a brilliant PR move, intended for the home audience and to a lesser degree, and critics abroad. I suspect that anyone actually living in Iraq knows its a sham.
Lets examione the evidence:
-Hand-picked US "interim government", made up mostly of ex IGC members.
-Irreversible laws made by the CPA while in power.
-CIA "advisors" in every single Iraqi ministry, from education to oil.
-The biggest US embassy in the world, located in Bahgdad and staffed by over 4000 people.
-Five permanent bases, most of which are the size of a small city
-Foreign troops remain in Iraq, despite the fact that only 2% of the citizens want them there.
-the US military in Iraq remains independent of any Iraqi government, and has total freedom to do as it likes.
yeah, you can just smell the sovereignty in the air. Bush counted on everyone just buying into the BS, and I'm sad to say, he was right.
-
They own their own country now, but its still run by Americans, dont think for a second Iraqi people have full control, they dont.
-
No, duh. But it's a step in that direction. It was never meant to give full and total contol back to the Iraqis as it would just degenerate back into the old scenario :p
-
Good news in principle, but I think that the temporary government will have trouble keeping control until the elections next year. It's going to be very tricky to make this work, particularly as the Americans will still be seen to be running things (no matter how true or false this is).
Here's hoping things stablise quickly. :)
-
don't most of he people like the interim guy?
wasn't it said that the interim govt. would have at the least veto authoraty over our military operations?
wasn't it said that if they asked us to leave we would?
not saying you'r entierly baseless, but maybe it's not as bad as you are assumeing.
-
Ah. The "protector" excuse. But the problem is, as far as I can see, this isn't a step at all. The US gives up 1% control and 100% responsibility. Its just misdirection. For one thing, all the people currently in power are mouthpieces. If they werent't they would side with the 98% of the the Iraqis (who they are supposedly representing) and demand that US troops leave. Until that happens, Iraq is still under occupation, and until free (and FAIR!) elections are held, a puppet government is still power.
Bremer of Alawi, its all the same really.
-
Bob:
1. Iyad Alawi has been living in exile for years and years. No, he could not be said to have the support of the Iraqi people, at least so far as I know. He's a former Baathist, member of the hated IGC and founder of the Iraqi National Accord, the Chalabi-like outfit which fed fake "evidence" to British intelligence during the run-up to the war.
2. During the past few months, there have been 100s of different stories floating around. Rumsfeld says on thing, Powell says another, Bremer says another, then Powell changes his story, some government official says another thing, a press release says a third thing, then Powell changes his story again etc etc.
From what I can figure, it has finally been decided that the Iraqi "government" will not have any say in US military operations.
3. I doubt that 150,000 US troops would just up and leave because the Iraqis said so, taking their permanent bases with them. But thats a theoretical scenario only. Alawi has about as much chance of asking US troops to leave as Bremer did. If the fact that 98% of Iraqis want US troops is not a clear enough message, I don't know what it. Its not like the desires of the Iraqi people is unclear.
____
It just that the whole "full sovereignty" thing pisses me off. Full means complete, 100%, but its obvious even to the most devout Bush supporters that its not even close to that. Sort of like the "end of the war" that Bush declared on the aircraft carrier. Its just words, they're not backed up by reality.
edit: Allawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allawi) on Wikipedia.
-
As you can see, you cannot satisfy everyone.
-
Well, look at Japan, the Americans promised they would leave ages ago, and yet quite blatantly refuse to do so, that still irks me :(
While there is much conjecture on the current Iraqi government, at least what power Bush has chosen to hand over has landed in the Hands of Iraqis...no, wait, hang on, wasn't that how Saddam got into power in the first place?
-
ionia: no, obviously not. A word doesn't do it for me. Virtually nothing has changed, there is just an added layer of bearucracy now. Instead of the American issuing orders directly, they tell their the Iraqis to issue to the orders. Notice how the new government is made up mostly of exiles.
With freedom of action comes responsibility. No freedom, no responsibility. What Bush is attempting to do is give the Iraqis all the responsibility, but none of the freedom.
Thats like telling a prisoner "you are free, but your circumstances will stay exactly the same. but remember, you are free. No, you can't leave. But you are free". Sovereignty means **** all if the Americans are still calling all the shots, which they are.
-
On a sort of side-note :-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=2&u=/nm/20040628/wl_nm/nato_summit_bush_blair_dc_1
Tony, sorry mate but your balls are too small, and your popularity too low, it's not going to work ;)
-
From the horse's mouth, CPA spokesman General Mark Kimmit
"I don't think that July 1st is particularly significant on the part of the coalition military operations, with the exception we will now be known as the multinational forces."
-
I'm sorta wondering why this was done...because I don't believe the given reason.
-
It was done to stop the flow of bad news from Iraq. They were seriously biting into Bush's popularity. This way, when anything bad happens, its the Iraqis fault. And America can stop being viewed as an oppressive invader, because wheeeee, now they've got sovereignty.
but, as I may have mentioned in passing, they have nothing of the sort.
-
when is voteing schedueld to take place? january? that'll be fun :).
-
sure will. I wonder if this elected government will have the power to kick the US troops out, bases and all. If I were a betting man, I would bet against it.
US media has almost no clout in Iraq, so it will be interesting to see who gets elected, and more importantly how and why.
-
I wonder what effect, if any, the US elections will have on the situation in Iraq....
-
None that I can think of. Kerry has the same platform as Bush, one could argue that its even worse. Kerry's only intention was to put that happy-faced fix-all "mutlinational peacekeeping force" stamp on the situtation ASAP, and that has in effect been done already. Its bull**** now and it would be bull**** if/when Kerry did it, but its more or less the same plan.
What people mostly don't realize is that the size of the mob does nothing to justify the situation. Is gang-rape better than solitary rape, because it was multilateral instead of unilateral? No, of course not, and the same applies to war.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040629/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reserve_callup
-
Nader should start a coup, it's not like theres going to be any soldiers left in the US to stop him ;) hehehehehe
Or.... as my Dad just put it.....
< singing >'Who do you think you are kidding Mr Laden....'
Not sure how many people will get that though ;)
-
All this conspiracy theory crap is giving me a HEADACHE! *crawls towards a corner*
-
Conspiracy Theory - Something allowing someone to think they have control over something they never will
-
I'm glad it's back in the hand of Iraqis, but, there was a wonderful cartoon this morning in the Daily Mail, of the Iraqi President holding this enormous fizzing bomb while George and Tony wander off saying 'All yours now! Good Luck!'
I think that is the concern of most people on here ;)
-
Then how come we finally give them what the people have been *****ING ABOUT THE FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS and now everyone is concerned again? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!
-
The people have been *****ing about being able to go shopping without the fear of being either blown up or arrested. That hasn't changed and won't for a long while :(
-
They have just been wanting us to leave Iraq alone, and now that we are leaving it up to them people dont want us to... :rolleyes:
-
As stated before, some people will never be satisfied as long as anything American continues to exist.
-
.... where they aren't invited.
I've supported America when I have felt it has deserved defending on this forum, but right now, I have serious reservations regarding the 'sovereignty' of Iraq. I have serious reservations about 5 US bases being built there. I have serious reservations about American advisors in almost every department.
It's a change in words, but until I see actions, I will continue to have those reservations.
-
None of that "where they aren't invited" crud. Call a spade a spade. America exists, that's all the reason people need to hate it, and it's denizens.
-
One word.
Bollocks.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
One word.
Bollocks.
One word: Fact. Things are much easier to deal with when they aren't sugar-coated.
-
Ok, Ok, I'm down to 3 word posts, need to relax ;) Let's tale it from your perspective...
Why do think in your opinion, that Europe and the rest of the world is turning Anti American?
-
Iraq may have it sovereignty, but does that mean we are done fighting the war on terror? ;7
-
Who's next? Syria? Korea?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, Ok, I'm down to 3 word posts, need to relax ;) Let's tale it from your perspective...
Why do think in your opinion, that Europe and the rest of the world is turning Anti American?
I suppose it depends on who you ask. For myself, that's easy:
1. Really crappy foreign policy
2. Half-assed approached to "please help us"
3. Electing moronic figureheads such as the current sitting President
4. Jealousy
5. Arrogance
Maybe i can sum up:
The Dixie Chicks once stated that they were ashamed President Bush comes from Texas. I'm ashamed that this was the best 100+ million voters could come up with. 'nuff said.
My sister and her husband took a 2 week trip to Germany last year. He speaks fluent German, she's in school learning it but can get by pretty well. Her goal was to try to speak exclusive German the whole time she was there. Apparently she did quite well and people were VERY responisive to her just for making the effort.
She has a story about when she, her husband, and a few friends flew over to Venice during the trip. She took a crack at trying to order her meal in Italian. All of the sudden she hears:
"HAY! Y'ALL FRUM AMERIKA???" "WELL, HOT DOG! Y'ALL DUN BE AMERIKANS!!!" blah blah blah.
The group turns around to see a whole group of tourists from Texas. She said she'd never been so embarassed in her life. Luckily, they were able to convince the Texans that they didn't speak any English at all.
"AH THOUGHT YEW FOREIGNERS HAD TUH SPAKE SUM ANGLISH".
Foreigners? FOREIGNERS? You're the foreigner here, numb nuts.
There's just so many of us who set really ****ty examples for what Americans act like and think. Sometimes I'm one of them. It feels like anything good this nation ever accomplishes is annihilated by a whole bunch of very f-ed up decisions made.
I remember in the wake of the brewing recent Iraq war when there was this retarded anti-French thing going on. You'll remember "freedom fries". Some a**hole at a coffeeshop here was going off about it, all the way up to suggestion that the bodies of American soldiers killed in WWII and currently buried in France be exhumed and sent back to the US. I couldn't resist...
Me:"Great ideas there, bub.Hey, while you're at it, how about mailing back the Statue Of Liberty?"
Him:"Why?"
Me: "They gave it to us, dumbs***".
Shut him up good, it did.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Iraq may have it sovereignty, but does that mean we are done fighting the war on terror? ;7
The war on terror is never won, and it cannot be won by military firepower alone.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Who's next? Syria? Korea?
Hopefully neither. I'd rather see us get a number of other UN nations to give President Karzi (sp?) of Afghanistan the troops he's so desperately asking for.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
She has a story about when she, her husband, and a few friends flew over to Venice during the trip. She took a crack at trying to order her meal in Italian. All of the sudden she hears:
"HAY! Y'ALL FRUM AMERIKA???" "WELL, HOT DOG! Y'ALL DUN BE AMERIKANS!!!" blah blah blah.
The group turns around to see a whole group of tourists from Texas. She said she'd never been so embarassed in her life. Luckily, they were able to convince the Texans that they didn't speak any English at all.
"AH THOUGHT YEW FOREIGNERS HAD TUH SPAKE SUM ANGLISH".
Foreigners? FOREIGNERS? You're the foreigner here, numb nuts.
THAT, is an INSULT to us Texans. That is not how we talk, and that is certainly now how we behave. We have rednecks, but not where I live. That kind of idiotic behavior should not be used as the standard for which we are all represented. :mad:
-
LOL Ionia...I'll agree, that wouldn't help ;)
Though, the image of Americans has always been of loud overweight Texans carrying cameras, no offence to any Texans here, that is just how they are typically portrayed in Europe. Like most British football supporters are often portrayed as skinhead hooligans, I don't really mind that, most people I have encountered judge on a one to one basis, it's only when you get mobs things get sticky :(
I think there is genuine fear and concern in the world for a conflict which is escalating, not diminishing, Muslims are Fighting christians in Africa, people throughout Europe and America are living each day half expecting to hear the Bio-Warning sirens go off. We want it to stop, all of us, America, Europe, Israel, Palestine, the only people who don't want it to stop are the Terrorists, because they are calling the shots while this goes on.
But, as you said in your second post, Firepower alone won't do it.
Also, there is a 'trend' among certain English (I don't know about European) teenagers to vocally dislike America (Whilst wearing Nike trainers and drinking Coke I might add). But that is hormones more than hatred, give them 5 years and they will swear they were above that sort of thing.
As Blair, in one of his accurate moments put it 'To deny there are rifts would be foolish'. but I don't think most of the world truly hates America, we are concerned, about what has happened and about what will happen in the future. America really does hold 4 billion lives in it's hands at the moment, just be careful with 'em, this is the kind of War where one move to save a hundred lives might cost 10000. :(
To be honest to you, you are a victim of media in that respect, it's not so much that you have had bad press, as that you have had press at all. Even World War II was mostly limited to B&W stills, but nowadays the Marines are practically tripping over the cameramen, something which I find revolting in a way. Bit it did open up peoples eyes to what War is, and most people were squeamiish. But you haven't made war any differently to any other country.
I won't agree with you that you are hated. I don't think you should have gone into Iraq in the manner that you did, and I think it was unfortunate that your government was either fed false information or gave false information regarding WMD's. But of all countries, of all people, Americans have the greatest responsiblility to be aware and tolerant of the outside world and the differences in it, because they have the most influence over it, and that, as you say, is where a large majority of the public fall down :(
-
Do you realize how humanity would unite if we discovered aliens? :wtf:
-
Not exactly, it could have the opposite effect of that you are trying to think of... it could drive us further apart with another topic on which to talk about.
Of course I'm pessimist :nervous:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
They have just been wanting us to leave Iraq alone, and now that we are leaving it up to them people dont want us to... :rolleyes:
You do understand that what the Iraqi people have been *****ing for is not limited to sovereignty, but US troops getting the hell out of their country. They seem to think they are up to the challenge, or seem to be willing to take the risk that they're not, so why does everyone go on how "we've given the Iraqis what they want". No, this is not what they want, they want all US troops out, including their bases, down to the last man. I don't see how anyone can at this point hold on to the notion that the US military is wanted in Iraq.
-
ionia, I'll put it to you as simply as I can. The US has alot of power, which they are using for whatever purposes, but in the process it harms others. Thats the basic jist of it.
Because of their foreign policy, as you said yourself, and because of their economic polilicy, a ****ing lot of people are suffering. Thats one aspect. The other aspect is that no one likes anyone else to have so much power. Its understandable. If everyone in your school is a normal kid, and then there's this one giant, 7' and 300 pounds, obviously people are not going to like that. Even if he's nice and gentle, knowing that you are at someone else's mercy is no way to live.
But you speak as if though America can do no wrong. I am of course working under the assumption that war and death are viewed as "bad things". So, starting wars ever few years, thats not a good thing. And the fact that its mostly (and by this I mean 99.99%) the innocents that suffer.
There are some other things which I would like to mention, but maybe later on. Basically, too much power, and using that power to inflict harm on others. Until the latter stops, there is a legimitate reason to strongly dislike American foreign policy.
-
Meh. Not gonna' happen. Just like it hasn't happened to any of the other countries we've taken over in the last 200 hundred years. Apparently, it's the Middle East's turn now.
-
so the Iraqis want to be totaly defenceles from Iran, Syria, and (to a lesser extent) Turkey?
(I doubt Jordan or Saudi Arabia would do any sort of overt action, but I could see Iran Syria or Turkey invadeing parts or going in and killing people)
I think it's less of a "get the hell out" and more of a "get the hell out of my way", as in they don't want us running there country, wich we still are doing and seem as though we will be doing for the forseable future.
-
well, ask yourself a question. Would you ever feel free with 150,000 foreign troops in country, armed to the teeth and operating independently of any local government?
I think that handing back political power is a step in the right direction, but I'm afaid that I just can't force myself to believe that that is what has happened a day ago.
As for enemies, I think Iraq is pretty well covered. Any nation that attacks it now, with or without US troops stationed there, is just asking for trouble. Iraq has plenty of able-bodied men to defend it, and plenty of oil to pay for the military hardware. Plus, if it got attacked any time within the next decade, the "international community" would quickly jump to its defence. In short, I think the chances of a foreign power invading Iraq are almost non-existant, present company exluded of course :lol: :lol:
Now the Kurds, thats a different story. Israel is supporting (financing, training etc) the Kurds to take power if need be, and also to attack Syria and Iran across the border. Needless to say, there is alot of bad blood between the Kurds and the Shia/Sunnis. And before anyone starts yelling anti-Semite or whatever, this has been confirmed by high ranking Israeli military officials, so...
-
well ask someone in germany how free they feel, we have a signifigant military presence there as well as many other places, and as far as I know, most people in most of these places couldn't be asked to give a ****. though I'm sure there are some exeptions to this.
the impression that I've got is that they don't want us running through there streets shooting people. wich I am perfictly inclined to aford them.
the way I see this going down is the Iraqis take over one thing at a time untill it seems like they've got it under controle then we start moveing troops out (I'm thinking this will start sometime around one or two years from now), leaveing a few at first just in case someone decides to take the opertunity to set up another dictatorship, eventualy we'll probly end up with a token base with 1 or 2 thosand people there in the middle of the desert.
-
Not to be a pessimist, but I doubt it. The bases that are being built are huge, made to accomodate tens of thousands. I somehow doubt they're building them with the intention of only stationing a few soldiers here and there. Iraq is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. The US could strike at any of the nieghboring countries from there. In addition, the US embassy in Baghdad in the largest in the world, with a staff of over 4000 people. All signs point to a large and extended military presence.
I think that Germany is the exception to the rule, for two reasons. One, they are quite capable of telling the US to **** off if they so wish, with no fear of retribution. They a powerful nation that can stand up to the US. This is not the case for the vast majority of countries in which US military bases are stationed. Outside of Western Europe, Japan and a few Asian nations, no country can step out of line without the dear or retaliation, be it economic or political or even military.
The second reason why I would consider Germany unique is that the bases have been there since WW2. And especially during the Cold War, I think people just got used to them. They don't affect the day-to-day lives of Germans, so why worry. And again, this is not the case for a great many nations abroad.
What it comes down to is, most of the nations in which bases are housed are too weak to act against Washington. Don't think that just because they (the bases) are there, that they're welcome. Even in powerful nations, specifically reffering to Japan, the US bases are a pretty big issue. Pressure is being put of Koiuzumi (Japanese PM) to reduce the size and number of US bases. From what I know, rape and a general lack of respect for the local law is prevalent in US bases abroad. I've got some quote by mikhael regarding this, can't be bothered to look for it now. In addition to that, the environmental damage that is being left behind by the bases is, from what I know, pretty extensive. And when the US decides to move its bases, the host country get stuck with the bill, which is equally extensive.
err, I rant too much. The best book that I know of regarding US military bases around the world is Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson. Imperial overextension, and the bases are a huge part of that, is one of the central themes in the book AFAIK, though I have not as of yet read it myslef.
ok,I talk to much. I'll shut up now.
-
you're looseing your touch, 5 paragraphs and not once was I filled with an intinite abyss of rage,
you just arn't trying tonight are you?
interesting semi-off topic thing I've mentioned a few times, I work and live right near a rather large military base. not sure how I'd feel if it was another nation's military there, supose it would depend on how I felt about that nation, they mostly keep to themselves, evey now and then the place I work at will get buzzed by a wing of f 14s or 18s, more oftine one of the giant cargo planes. I once saw an AWACs.
I ride by it all the time on my bike,
have yet to get stopped by the MPs :(