Tendo City

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...reignty_23

Quote:BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government two days early Monday in a surprise move that apparently caught insurgents off guard, averting a feared campaign of attacks to sabotage the historic step toward self-rule.

Mr Bush keeps his word this time, To early to call victory though , We have to see how things go in the next few months.Good Improvement! I dont expect terrorism to end untill the U.S leaves and a elected iraq goverment is formed.The new interim Goverment will be a big target since the terrorist view it as a puppet goverment.

I still think going into iraq was not necessary and will not lead to peace with the islamic world and a end to terrorism you cannot go around reshaping the world by force as you see fit unless you can prove with solid evidence your at threat, I would have wanted a peaceful alternative then have 800 american young men killed,thousands of iraqis killed and injured plus all those beheadings and attacks. There was other ways of removing Saddam, Arming Kurds and othe rebels from each corner of iraq to the tie, Then provide air support and bomb and chip off all of Saddams forces like you did in Afghanistan and allow rebel factions to crush him. Putting legions of americans troops on sacred islamic soil makes it look like a total invasion and a cruisade conquest, Doing it the way I suggested above would have reduced american casualties and backlash from the muslims.

I dont want any of you thinking you can do this as many times as you see fit, Your very fortunate that iraq was not even nearly as bloody as Vietnam but it could have been.Nore have we seen the end of it.

The Arabs are not to be under estimated they beat the soviets, They crushed the english and the french. Saladin and the saracens defeated the Cruisaders which was a allied coalition of europeans.Osama Bin ladin caught you by the skin of your teeth and did the worse attack on american mainland soil in history since the civil war and WW2.Osama still lives and he is kicking and ploting with lots of help! We must seek peace and end the violence or we will be like isreal left with no hope or no escape.

As for Nato helping in iraq, Ive heard france and germany have agreed too.

Right now for canada that all depends on the election results, Our Prime Ministry cannot get involved in a conflict the same day he could be voted out of office.

They way things look.

1.Conservatives 100% certain they will send troops into iraq one way or another if elected.

2.liberals 90% certain they would as well , Paul Martin is no lover of Jean Chretien , I doubt Martin would have gotten involved last year , But I am sure he will send some troops for the sake of the iraqi interim goverment.

3.NDP 40% chance, Layton is more liberal then the liberals ,He has some anti american traits, Which is to bad he is a nice guy and alot of his plans for canada sounded good he was never a flip flop, But as much as I dislike Bush I dont want canada to have any rival amosity for the states we have been brothers and freinds for so long it would not be right, I am willing to live and coexist with George Bush if he respects us in return and maybe listen to our concerns.

This "transfer of power" is a joke. We still have our troops there (and must do so). We still have a lot of control. The leader of Iraq is a ... friend ... of the CIA. This is just for show and I'd be pretty surprised if it changes anything.

I guess the brains in the Bush goverment (not Bush) ,Figured having a sovereign iraqi goverment would get the french and germans in iraq, It worked.

If canada helped, We would have to pull troops from afghanistan and bosnia, So I dont know how easy it would be, But who ever is Prime Ministry tommorow when the election result come in will make that decision.

maybe Bush jr AKA Harper might start buying air craft carriers and death copters and turn canada into a semi super power like England, Like he was proposing.Thats scary!

But not entirely a bad thing, Since we will be more independant and capable of helping the world.

canucks with nukes ! Its about time we got respect! LOL!

Quote:This "transfer of power" is a joke. We still have our troops there (and must do so). We still have a lot of control. The leader of Iraq is a ... friend ... of the CIA. This is just for show and I'd be pretty surprised if it changes anything.

The new Iraqi government DOES have complete control of the government and the country, except in the case of security which would be impossible for them to be in control of. In other words they've taken over all the powers that Paul Bremmer had.

I'm sure that Allaui won't be trying to do many things that we haven't approved, though. He's just a puppet... we have effective control. And still control many parts of their government... controlling security gives us a lot of control, you know. There is only so much that that government can do and going against what we want wouldn't exactly be a good idea for people in their position.

Quote:I'm sure that Allaui won't be trying to do many things that we haven't approved, though. He's just a puppet... we have effective control. And still control many parts of their government... controlling security gives us a lot of control, you know. There is only so much that that government can do and going against what we want wouldn't exactly be a good idea for people in their position.

Of course he's going to depend on us some to help him control the country and he'll like come to us for advice on certain situations, but he's making the ultimate decisions on just about everything. If we stepped over him on ANYTHING that wasn't directly related to our forces it would destroy everything we're trying to do by transfering power.

And I should HOPE they would put a pro-America guy in charge. What, you'd rather someone that hates America be put in place?

I imagine that any prominent Iraqi who's anti-American is probably also pro-Saddam, so it makes sense.

Whether it's pro-Sadam or not, you don't want to put an America hater in charge of that country when you can pick someone who likes us.

Some people just won't be happy until Iraq is governed by some rabidly anti-American dude, 'cuz all the others are "puppets".

Then they'll be like "OMG WTF LOOK A PSYCHO CONTROLS IRAQ, THE WAR WAS ALL IN VAIN + U SHUD HAVE LISTENED 2 ME"

Fuck that. Like DJ said, I damn well hope they put someone who likes America in charge.

Great Rumbler Wrote:I imagine that any prominent Iraqi who's anti-American is probably also pro-Saddam, so it makes sense.

The iraqi people and the islamic world wont see it that way.Saddam was pro american at one time.

What if this guy decides , I am the president now! No elections! No democracy! What would you do?

Quote:Saddam was pro american at one time.

Saddam was never "pro"-America. He was was pro-"Hey, guess what? I'll fight communism if you give me weapons!". There is a difference. :)

Quote:What if this guy decides , I am the president now! No elections! No democracy! What would you do?

I really doubt he'd do something like that.

Wasn't a new constitution written up that would guarentee certain rights of the people, something America had a hand in, that would PREVENT that very sort of scenario of a new dictatorship emerging?

Anyway, yes, America DID have a HUGE controlling part in setting up this place, but come on, we sorta HAD to. We couldn't have just said "um, okay we tore up the joint... you do whatever you want from now on", we had to actually make the government one we'd be happy with, and honestly that was EXACTLY what HAD to be done at that point. We HAD to step in and TELL them how to run their country for when we would finally step out to prevent another Saddam. We could NOT allow the whole place to tear itself apart until a new dictator, who would likely hate us even more than Saddam, stepped in and the place was ruled even worse. Whether or not the war was the right thing to do, I'm still considering if we really needed to go there myself (the main reason I supported going there is now under serious doubts, meaning my agreeing with the original decision is also under serious doubts), BUT, after the fact there really is no question that we had to go all the way and reform their government in our image. We couldn't "waffle" or anything like that after what we did, no question.

One of the guys in the iraqi goverment you had trusted for a long time was a Iranian spy!

Constitutions wont protect freedom, If the whackos in the goverment dont give a shit.All you need to cease power is some supporters and a army to back you up.

Hitler did it, But he played and minipulated the laws in the democracy, Did some terrorism blaimed it on the jews and got a patriot act like bill passed to fight the fake terrorism he created, using that power he turned the place upsidedown.Constitution holes can be exploited its not just hitler, Some african countries were democractic for years, The some whacko came in and told them it was over he was there for life and if you challenged him the military and his gestoppo would kill you.

Now thats not likely.

I am more concerned that the new interim goverment could have assinations maybe even wipe them all out by terrorist radicals.

And that's why America's security is there, to keep that thing from happening.

And honestly, the whole system of government is based on trusting the people in office. Yes, someone betrayed us, but if we stop trusting anyone in the government we are no better than common punks and there's not much of a step from there to all out rebellion and anarchy, which of course will result in a fudal era for a while until eventually some people who hate living like that form a group and go on the basis of honor and law, slowly building up a new government, with codes and honor. Suddenly outsiders will show up with vastly superior technology, terrifying the people, and they will ban it, and cut themselves off from the world, until a few years later, they are forced into open trade via the new technology, then out of nowhere they will team up with Germany and bomb some country formed from colonies and then suddenly get bombed back with much BIGGER bombs, then a few decades later they will run the world with superior entertainment and technology. It's happened before.

First, of course Iraqis now have more control over their country than before. But the point is that we still have a deciding interest in their politics and the fact that the government is now Iraqi won't stop us from doing just about anything (policywise) that we want...

Yes, of course they were going to put someone who is close to the American government in power. That's my point -- they don't want any problems with making it look like they are making him do things, so they put someone in who will do as we want on the major issues and not do much of substance to question what we are doing there. Now, we absolutely have to keep our troops in Iraq, but I think that anyone expecting this move to lead to much change in the situation in Iraq, politically or resistance-wise, isn't looking very hard.

Oh, and the free government could be a very big problem. A LOT of Iraqis hate us now. Have a truly free election and we will get a very large anti-American party who hates us... why do you think that the American government has only the lightest criticism for Musharaf in Pakistan?