U.S. Hands over government to Iraq 2 days early

[sooner333]

hxxp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5312795/


BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government Monday, speeding up the move by two days in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who may have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule.

advertisement

Legal documents handing over sovereignty were handed over by U.S. governor L. Paul Bremer to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in a ceremony in the heavily guarded Green Zone.

"This is a historical day," Allawi said. "We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."

Bremer will leave Iraq sometime Monday, coalition officials said on condition of anonymity.

"You have said, and we agreed, that you are ready for sovereignty," Bremer said in the ceremony. "I will leave Iraq confident in its future."

[HornedFrog Purple]

Apparently they handed over Saddam too (legally that is).

[JAG]

As much "sovereignty" as a country can have while numerous foreign troops they cannot force to leave are present. :)

Meanwhile, Kerry rips up his 'And we're still in Iraq with no exit plan in sight' speech and pulls out the 'We turned over sovereignty far too soon' speech. :)

[Samdari]

Apparently they handed over Saddam too (legally that is).

He'll be back in power within 60 days of our military pulling out.

Or killed in prison, I'm not sure.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I don't think he will ever leave US custody.

I'd predict an "accident".

[Samdari]

I don't think he will ever leave US custody.

I'd predict an "accident".

I misread your post. I thought they had actually handed him over.

Still, if there are indeed plans for us to ever completely pull out of Iraq, we either have to take him with us (which goes against announced plans to try him in Iraq) or hand him over and run the risk of him taking over.

[CamEdwards]

Damn that warmonger Dubya. He can't even get an imperial American Empire right. Doesn't he know that in order to establish an international empire he actually has to retain control of these countries?

First Afghanistan, and now Iraq. Why are we waging a war for oil when we keep turning control of the oil back over to the native people?

[HornedFrog Purple]

No, they apparently let him appear before an Iraqi judge then we took him back to wherever we have him. I don't think this is anything to worry about for the forseeable future as I highly doubt Iraqi internal security will be deemed secure for 3 to 4 years ( my own conservative figure) for us to hand him over.

[Samdari]

Damn that warmonger Dubya. He can't even get an imperial American Empire right. Doesn't he know that in order to establish an international empire he actually has to retain control of these countries?

First Afghanistan, and now Iraq. Why are we waging a war for oil when we keep turning control of the oil back over to the native people?

Umm, Cam, not to get in a liberal/conservative war here, but JAG has it right. Since the US has the strongest force in the area, we are still in charge of Iraq. This "handover" just an attempt to quell violence by having Iraqis see one of their own as the figurehead instead of a US contractor. Make no mistake, the US is still running that country.

[JPhillips]

I just can't figure out why we pushed the date forward. Is security really poor enough that we had to slip this in without the terorists knowing it was coming? There has to be more to this story than Allawi saying he's ready.

On another note I was reading some of the laws Bremer initiated and it really highlights his poor record in Iraq. According to what I read, some of his high points include a law making it illegal to drive without a license, a law concerning which side of the road cars can occupy, a law setting tax rates for businesses, and of course a law that makes it very difficult for the interim government to change laws. These are the kinds of things that just drive me crazy. All of this should be left up to the Iraqis. Why the hell are we wasting time and effort on driver's licenses when the country is going up in flames? This is just more proof for me that while the goal is worthy, the folks running this are so incompetent that we would have better off waiting.

[IMetTrentGreen]

Umm, Cam, not to get in a liberal/conservative war here, but JAG has it right. Since the US has the strongest force in the area, we are still in charge of Iraq. This "handover" just an attempt to quell violence by having Iraqis see one of their own as the figurehead instead of a US contractor. Make no mistake, the US is still running that country.

what? a conservative radio host blabbering on ignorantly? im shocked and dismayed

[Glengoyne]

Umm, Cam, not to get in a liberal/conservative war here, but JAG has it right. Since the US has the strongest force in the area, we are still in charge of Iraq. This "handover" just an attempt to quell violence by having Iraqis see one of their own as the figurehead instead of a US contractor. Make no mistake, the US is still running that country.
I think you are missing the larger point. That being that the U.S. wasn't doing this out of imperialism, like many had charged. Also that the U.S. wasn't playing a game to land control of Middle Eastern Oil, like many had charged.

[clintl]

I think you are missing the larger point. That being that the U.S. wasn't doing this out of imperialism, like many had charged.

I suppose that depends on how much influence you think the neocon manifesto drafted by Wolfowitz et al. in the late 1990s had to do with the decision to launch a war.

[Chubby]

I think you are missing the larger point. That being that the U.S. wasn't doing this out of imperialism, like many had charged. Also that the U.S. wasn't playing a game to land control of Middle Eastern Oil, like many had charged.

You're right, now that we got rid of all those pesky WMDs we can leave! :D

[Samdari]

I think you are missing the larger point. That being that the U.S. wasn't doing this out of imperialism, like many had charged. Also that the U.S. wasn't playing a game to land control of Middle Eastern Oil, like many had charged.

I did not miss that point, I intentionally avoided it. I have no wish to debate it here.

My point was this, that reports of us handing over power are greatly exaggerated, and thus what happened today is not in any way proof that those charges were false.

[duckman]

I did not miss that point, I intentionally avoided it. I have no wish to debate it here.

My point was this, that reports of us handing over power are greatly exaggerated, and thus what happened today is not in any way proof that those charges were false.
What happened today is exactly what happened in Afghanistan. The interim government will conduct business for the Iraqi people while we handle the police matters around the country. I say that we are there for another two years while we still trained troops and police force.

I also think it was a shrewd move to hand over power early because now it really put a damper on what Al Queda wanted to do on the June 30. They still will attack us, but now they can't interrupt the hand over. It is done and now on the way to have a democratic Iraq.

[Jets80]

Apparently they handed over Saddam too (legally that is).

Place your Bets on how long before the jail break.

[panerd]

what? a conservative radio host blabbering on ignorantly? im shocked and dismayed

LOL. Time for the MVP to come in to his defense.

[Glengoyne]

... what happened today is not in any way proof that those charges were false.
You are correct. Common sense refuted those charges months ago.

[BishopMVP]

LOL. Time for the MVP to come in to his defense.:) I'm flattered, but even though this should help a lot (The Iraqis have much more trust in the interim government than they did in the IGC, we'll see whether that lasts or not now that the interim gov't is actually in charge to an extent) if we really disagree with something they do, we'll probably do what we want. Other than Allawi declaring Martial Law, where we would probably come in and end that I don't see it happening though.No, they apparently let him appear before an Iraqi judge then we took him back to wherever we have him. I don't think this is anything to worry about for the forseeable future as I highly doubt Iraqi internal security will be deemed secure for 3 to 4 years ( my own conservative figure) for us to hand him over.He'll probably be put on trial in the next few months, and we'll still be the ones holding him. He'll only be handed over once the verdict of death comes back from the court, and even then we'll probably have a dozen guys with guns trained on him in case something goes wrong.

[hukarez]

I can't help but wonder when the patch will be released for this one, or at least, a list of upcoming bug fixes!

[stevew]

[QUOTE=HornedFrog Purple]I don't think he will ever leave US custody.

I'd predict an "accident".[/QUOTE}

I'm with you on this one. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of time if they had just dropped the grenade down the snakehole like they were gonna.

[Senator]

/grumbling

[Tekneek]

Having your military in a nation and installing a government that is friendly to you could not be imperialism. Surely you didn't think it was bad when the Soviet Union was doing it, right? Or China...or Japan...

The very act of forcing regime change and by military force putting a new regime in charge is imperialist.

The definition of imperialist is :

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

How is this not imperialist?

The changing of power is for show. If the new government decided that all Americans must leave tomorrow, they would then be removed from power by the US.

[Wolfpack]

Um, except for the tiny bit that the administration has said that if they said "Leave", they would. Do you really think Bush is going to commit political suicide by backing away from saying something like that?

Besides, as you well know, these are perfectly trained running dog lackies of the capitalist imperators and therefore not going to do such a thing. (Have I hit all the stereotypes for you? :) )

[Tekneek]

I would be surprised if they have not taken all the precautions they could to make sure that they won't be ran out of the country anytime soon. The US will have a strong influence over the course of things for quite a while.

As far as what Bush is willing to commit political suicide over, I am sure I don't really know what chances he is willing to take. By definition, the actions so far are imperialist. That does not mean I am saying they are overwhelmingly negative OR positive, but they do meet the definition.

[sabotai]

I'm happy the Iraqis are getting Saddam. I don't think there will be a jail break (if anything, we'll be helping in making sure he stays secure. I doubt they'll be a scenario where Saddam is with a lone guard who turns out to be a loyalist. He'll stay secure, we'll be insistant on it).

I'm happy because Iraq doesn't have a "no cruel and unusual punishment" thing to stop them from getting...creative. :D

[Bubba Wheels]

Having your military in a nation and installing a government that is friendly to you could not be imperialism. Surely you didn't think it was bad when the Soviet Union was doing it, right? Or China...or Japan...

The very act of forcing regime change and by military force putting a new regime in charge is imperialist.

The definition of imperialist is :

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

How is this not imperialist?

The changing of power is for show. If the new government decided that all Americans must leave tomorrow, they would then be removed from power by the US.

The United States has always viewed legitimate government as ruling by consensus. Without a majority consensus of the population it is, in the U.S. view, never legitimate. And any unlegitimate government is fully subject to overthrow for our own national interests. Too bad, so sad. Funny how many of those calling the U.S. 'imperialist' never have problems with the likes of Saddam and Castro. But they also never want to seem to want to have to actually live under them.

[Tekneek]

Funny how many of those calling the U.S. 'imperialist' never have problems with the likes of Saddam and Castro. But they also never want to seem to want to have to actually live under them.

So, if you read the definition of imperialist, and see that the actions of the US Government meet the definition...you should want to live under the control of Saddam and Castro? Is that your theory?

[Glengoyne]

The definition of imperialist is :

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

How is this not imperialist?

Well we neither acquired territory, nor are we controlling their government. As far as the day to day operations of their country goes, the buck stops with an Iraqi. The U.S. troops are there to provide security, but they are there with the government's consent.

[Tekneek]

Well we neither acquired territory, nor are we controlling their government. As far as the day to day operations of their country goes, the buck stops with an Iraqi. The U.S. troops are there to provide security, but they are there with the government's consent.

Deinition of hegemony :

The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

So, I guess this boils down to whether or not you think the United States is currently a predominant economic or political influence over Iraq. I think we are exerting that on them, with our 140,000 troops on their soil and more. While it may be with their consent, they may feel they have no other choice at this point...which indicates the influence we do indeed have. We created the situation that necessitates our presence continuing at the same level. We knock their previous government out of power, which leads to civil unrest/disorder/war, and then are subsequently needed to stay because the "insurgency" is wiping out people everyday...

Whether the actions were needed, or just, they do seem to meet the definition of imperialist. Maybe you should not think of it as a dirty word and you would not have such a problem with it.

[SFL Cat]

I suppose that depends on how much influence you think the neocon manifesto drafted by Wolfowitz et al. in the late 1990s had to do with the decision to launch a war.

Yes, Wolfowitz's manifesto is kept in a box that sits next to Clinton's manifesto to neutralize the U.S. as the world's only nuclear Super Power by allowing Communist China to steal our missile technology for campaign contributions -- allowing the Red Chinese to gain not only ICBM capability but the ability to send men into space as well. :rolleyes:

[clintl]

The United States has always viewed legitimate government as ruling by consensus. Without a majority consensus of the population it is, in the U.S. view, never legitimate. And any unlegitimate government is fully subject to overthrow for our own national interests. Too bad, so sad. Funny how many of those calling the U.S. 'imperialist' never have problems with the likes of Saddam and Castro. But they also never want to seem to want to have to actually live under them.

You don't much history, do you? If you did, you would know that on a number of occasions, the US sponsored the overthrow of democratically-elected governments we didn't like, so that pro-US dictators could rule.

[Bubba Wheels]

You don't much history, do you? If you did, you would know that on a number of occasions, the US sponsored the overthrow of democratically-elected governments we didn't like, so that pro-US dictators could rule.

Cold War was another matter entirely. That chapter's closed. Admittedly, we did some things in our own interests during the cold war that now seem regretable. I was going to note that exception (cold war), but knew someone would just go ahead and find some other obscur example (the exception that proves the rule, btw.)

Outside of that 30yr period, however, you seem willing to dismiss alot of things the U.S. actually did outside of our own interests. WW2 being the most obvious. But how about WW1? Wilson got us involved 'to make the world safe for democracy." France, btw, blamed us for not GETTING INVOLVED SOONER! (No pleasing the French.)

But the most blatant example I find is in the 1950s. Britain and France, not taking the seizing of the Suez Canal by the Egyptians lying down decided to invade. Eisenhower in no uncertain terms told them to 'get out.' Pretty Imperialistic, right? And for gratitude? Egyptians hate us almost more than anyone else in the world today. Contrast this with Vietnam, our former enemy, who is bending over backwards to normalize relations with us. Maybe the moral to this story is really "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished."

[clintl]

Did I say that we never did anything just because it was right to do? No. I simply refuted your assertion that the US has always view rule by consensus, and only by consensus, as legitimate. And, for your information, the years that the US did not do that go far beyond the Cold War years. We fought a war with Spain to help Cuba get independence, and then turned around and fought a war right after that to deny the newly acquired terroritory of the Philippines the independence its people wanted. We spent a couple of decades denying several Central Americans countries the opportunity for democracy and self-determination for the benefit of US banana companies. Even today, we are smooching with a Pakistani military dictator who overthrew a democratically-elected government (corrupt one, admittedly, but still elected). And he's not even the worst of the Middle Eastern dictators we are good friends with.