#171985 - 06/16/0410:38 AMRe: What? Is this a typo!? (political)
An' th' Lawd did send down a tiiiiiiiiiiiiiirible big lahgtnin' bowlt, and all them sinnah's wuz toated like so much mic'rwave popcorn. An he done seen that it wuz guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuud.<br><br>Praise Jay-zus! Kin ah git me a HA LAY-LU-YAH!!!<br><br>
Since everyone likes to make things clear, the US did not negotiate with al-Sadr or any al-Sadr representatives. The US agreed to an Iraqi brokered cease-fire agreement.<br><br>Next of you really think al-Sadr has any real chance of advancing politically then you really haven't been following the situation in Iraq a closely as I thought. Politically, he's like the Ralph Nader of Iraq.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>what happens if iraq starts veering towards becoming another iran?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh, you mean what would we do if there is an armed Islamic revolution in Iraq whose purpose is to destroy the current government and install a cleric type person to be the supreme leader bringing misery on all the people? We'd probably pull out post-haste or maybe fight such a rebellion by the request of the recognized government. I don't know. But, you're right, Bush should issue a statement detailing US policy if such a thing occured because it's important to have a well thought out unchanging plan for every possible conceivable contingincy that may occur.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>quite intrigued that conservatives are okay with al-Sadr being given a second chance. i am intrigued that dubya could take such a hard line stance only to reverse direction completely<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm sorry I missed the article that says that conservatives are OK with al-Sarr being given a second chance. I think what I read was that we are not OK with it, rather the US is repecting the soverginity of the Iraqi government which is exactly what the US and the President said we would do. (Which I know if a forign concept to most libs after having Clinton around for 8 years). It's unfortunate some people feel the Iraqis are not equipped to figure out how to run their own affairs or deal with their own political situation.<br><br>Sean, seriously, have you stopped reading the paper or listening to NPR? Your second paragraph is so off ther mark I struggle on how to respond.<br>So, just to recap... The US appoints Iraqis to the "Governing Council". Their task is to draft an interm constitution (The Transistional Administrative Law). This is backed by the UN. Then at the UNs behest the "Govening Council" is disbanded in favor of the Iraqi Interim Government. The CPA and the UN worked together with Iraqis to pick the members of the IIG. The primary purpose of the IIG is to run Iraq's affairs until national elections to be held no later than Jan. 31 2005. Also, in July you can throw the Interim National Council into the mix. Their purpose is to advise the IIG, monitor the implementaion of laws and approve the 2005 budget. Members of the ING will be picked during a National Conference in July.<br>Also coming in the next couple of weeks will be the formalization of the judicial branch as set out by the TAL.<br>Then by Jan 31 2005 there will be national elections to pick memebers of the Transitional National Assembly and Govenment who will be tasked with drafiting a formal permanent consitution then another round of national elections to pick leaders as set out by the Iraq consitiution.<br>Yep, now that I type out the whole thing I realize that your right it isn't much different than it was under Saddam.<br><br>Dean Davis
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Oh, you mean what would we do if there is an armed Islamic revolution in Iraq whose purpose is to destroy the current government and install a cleric type person to be the supreme leader bringing misery on all the people? <p><hr></blockquote><p>no, what do we do if a cleric-type person runs for office and wins? this isn't a two party system that will be in place and a Shi'ite cleric (in the mold of iran...we already know they are meddling with iraq via chalabi) could easily win a general election with a smaller percentage of the vote than we'd think. then again, they don't even have a system in place that spells out the electoral process and they think they'll be ready by January??? i think al-Sadr is becoming very, very widely known. by January, he could be remembered as the man who stood up to the US and is still alive and prospering. perhaps not...we'll see.<br><br>we can respect iraqi's sovereignty, but it doesn't officially start for a few more weeks. we still have the lone control of this nation and we've already thrown in the towel and left this to the iraqi people. i think we *finally* realized that al-Sadr is not a terrorist and that killing him would do more damage than we first believed. i think we wised up and that we're trying to cover our tracks now without saying we screwed up and that's why this retreat is so glaringly obvious.<br><br>i realize i added mucho spin to my second paragraph, but i also realize that there is probably a lot of truth to what i wrote even if the "official" state line we're hearing says differently. that interim government is very much seen as a puppet of the US. being backed or supported by the UN carries no weight at this point because it was almost completely our doing. we'll see how much respect they garner in just a few weeks.<br><br><br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Natíl Security Cncl staff specialist.
Acutally, I was speaking about being PC about not harming any of their mosques. My position would be, if you are firing on our soldiers from a place of worship, that place of worship becomes fair game for gun & missle fire. But us trying to fight a PC war, didn't want to offend anyone by firing on a house of worship (although Al-Sardr and his gang can supposedly fire FROM it), so Al-Sadr lives on.<br><br>I never said I would want to kill innocent civilians, although that certainly happens in any way. So please don't blow my comments about a PC war out of proportion.<br><br>
Sean, seriously please go read up on the current plan for Iraqi transition to a democratic system. They aren't electing a dictator here. If a Cleric wins election to even the Prime-Minister post then hell have input into a system along with 60-100 other Iraqis on how to run the country and form a constitution. He doesn't just get to say "Well, I'm Prime-minister now so everyone do what I say!".<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>they don't even have a system in place that spells out the electoral process and they think they'll be ready by January???<p><hr></blockquote><p>Since the Iraqis picked that date I don't think I'll try to second guess them from my cubicle in Michigan. So yes, they do. And if there not then they'll decide when to elect the transitional government.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>we still have the lone control of this nation and we've already thrown in the towel and left this to the iraqi people.<p><hr></blockquote><p>We haven't thrown in the towel or flip-flopped or any such thing. We are doing what we said we were going to do for many months. We are leaving this to the Iraqi people because that is what the US wants, the Iraqis want, the UN wants and the world community wants. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>that interim government is very much seen as a puppet of the US.<p><hr></blockquote><p>By whom? Have have seen nothing to date that indicates this is true in any widespread way. If that were the case then the President would have been who we wanted. Instead we got Sheikh Ghazi Ajil Al-Yawar who has been very critical of the US. But I guess this was all part of the grand puppet government conspiracy. The plan is to put in place someone the US didn't want just so it WOUDLN'T look like a puppet government. Brilliant. Geroge W. Bush must be a brilliant poltical tactician.<br><br>Dean Davis
do a google search and you can find hundreds of sources pointing to the fact that the interim gov't is seen as a puppet gov't. in fact, many news articles talk about how the interim gov't needs to do much to convince their own people that they aren't a puppet. for example, here is a cincinnati post article that speaks very briefly to this fact. snippet:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The interim government is likely to show a prickly assertiveness to show that it is not a U.S. puppet; it faces, on its own, the daunting task of selling itself to the Iraqi people as their legitimate government. And to win international support for the new government, the Bush administration will have to make genuine concessions.<br><br>The potential problem for the Bush administration is that the interim government will collapse in internecine squabbling, leaving the country in a greater chaos than it is already. On the other hand, if the government stays together and insists on its prerogatives, Fallujah, Najaf, private militias, renegade clerics and street crime increasingly become its problem and not ours.<br><br>There are no guarantees, but the creation of the interim government holds out hope, however faint, that Iraq one day will be permanently ruled by a truly representative elected government.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the world knows, americans know, and iraqis know that the interim gov't is seen as a puppet so i am not sure why you debate this point; however, as this article illustrates, they are working very hard to try and not be seen as a puppet (including the decision to select Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer as the interim president even the the US had targeted someone else -- and, the article addresses this, "The new interim president is Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, who has been an outspoken critic of the U.S. occupation. Even so, he does not seem anti-American -- and in fact has studied in this country -- and has denounced violence against U.S. forces." -- he's been critical, but is still not seen as anti american, which might be necessary imho). Dean, do you think the interim gov't had ANY other choice? was there even a chance that they could have selected Paul Bremer's choice and still be seen as anything close to legitimate? not a bit. this had to happen and is hardly the "brilliant poltical" decision that you try and make it out to be...it was common sense, but the puppet status is still very apparent in the world and in iraq. apparently, this is not obvious to you. here's another source that makes the puppet status clear:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In response to criticism over the level of US involvement in picking Iraq's interim leadership, Brahimi stressed that the United States was still the dominant force in the country. <br><br>"I don't think he'd mind my saying this: Paul Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money, he has the signature," he said. <br><br>The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Iraq's most influential Shiite party, expressed reservations about the "mechanisms of dialogue" used in selecting Cabinet members. <br><br>Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has yet to make public his views on the new government. <br><br>Separately, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the new government could face a baptism of fire from militants, such as Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who are set on derailing what they see as an American puppet regime.<p><hr></blockquote><p>link here<br>do you honestly think anyone in iraq believes that this is not a puppet interim gov't? "Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Iraq's most influential Shiite party," is a significant portion of iraq. do you have any reason to believe that they are alone in this thinking?<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Natíl Security Cncl staff specialist.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We are leaving this to the Iraqi people because that is what the US wants, the Iraqis want, the UN wants and the world community wants.<p><hr></blockquote><p>also what Iran wants. Iran massing troops on Iraq border<br><br><br>
The point is not how the government is SEEN but how they are. Are they or are they not puppets? If they are puppets and are seen to be puppets then all is well since they'll all be run out of town. If they are not puppets but are seen as puppets then that situation will correct itself through the governments actions from now until January. If they are puppets and are in collusion with the US to protray themselves as not being puppets then you have a big problem because the people will see right through the veil and the whole thing falls apart.<br><br>What we will come to find out is that they are not puppets and the rest of the populous will come to realize that and Iraqis will find their own way to democracy over the next 10 years or so.<br><br>You say Iraqis and the World see them as puppets but I don't, do you?<br><br>Dean Davis
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.