The June 30th Deadline
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What will this mean for Iraq?</div> <a href='http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/8110916.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
<a href='http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02202004/world/915.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
<a href='http://www.pjstar.com/news/apwire/b2c1abdl041.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>
A quick google search will reveal a heap more.
The US has said it will hand over sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people on June 30th. Trouble is, no-one really knows who's going to be representing the Iraqi people. There's growing concern that the country won't be ready in June to accept power, and fears that a suitable government won't be available.
The US has committed itself to this deadline; for Bush it is a key factor in an election year. If he backs down on the date and extends the deadline, he'll be seen as bowing to terrorist pressure, and in an election filled with questions about defense that would be a bad move. However if power is transferred and Iraq isn't ready, the whole country might fall apart. The only thing really holding it together right now is the US. If any one of the major political groups within Iraq (Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds) was to seize power within the new Iraqi government, it could spark a civil war that is already threatening to break out.
So what does everyone think? Will Iraq be ready? Can the country stay together without a US administration? Will transferring power reduce the attacks in Iraq, or will they increase? Has Bush set an unrealistic timetable, and is he sticking to it for political reasons?
<a href='http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02202004/world/915.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
<a href='http://www.pjstar.com/news/apwire/b2c1abdl041.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>
A quick google search will reveal a heap more.
The US has said it will hand over sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi people on June 30th. Trouble is, no-one really knows who's going to be representing the Iraqi people. There's growing concern that the country won't be ready in June to accept power, and fears that a suitable government won't be available.
The US has committed itself to this deadline; for Bush it is a key factor in an election year. If he backs down on the date and extends the deadline, he'll be seen as bowing to terrorist pressure, and in an election filled with questions about defense that would be a bad move. However if power is transferred and Iraq isn't ready, the whole country might fall apart. The only thing really holding it together right now is the US. If any one of the major political groups within Iraq (Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds) was to seize power within the new Iraqi government, it could spark a civil war that is already threatening to break out.
So what does everyone think? Will Iraq be ready? Can the country stay together without a US administration? Will transferring power reduce the attacks in Iraq, or will they increase? Has Bush set an unrealistic timetable, and is he sticking to it for political reasons?
Comments
Hopefully it does work... that's like a world record at rebuilding a country complete with a working government.
It could very well set a new stage in US foreign politics.
Don't like a government?
Invade them, pave it over, and then follow up with a quick and painless 1 year rebuilding scheme for teh win.
Scary, yet oh so promising tbh
Handing power over to the transitional government will help in the long run with the attacks also. There may be a slight upsurge in attacks as that day draws near and passes ( only for intimidation purposes ), but as the Iraqis start to feel more and as they are in charge of their own futures... Then the attacks will abate, but unfortunately they will most likely remain for some time to come.
1. No they will not be ready. Afghanistan isn't even ready (only 10% are registered voters)
2. I don't think the country can stay together which seems contradictory to...
3. I think it will reduce the number of attacks. Al Queda will have a harder time getting Muslims to kill <b>other</b> Muslims. Americans are easier to accuse of 'infidel'ity <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
4. Yes it's an unrealistic deadline, and it's morons like <a href='http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m20/' target='_blank'>this</a> that will most assuredly cause a power struggle in Iraq that will lead to, you guessed it, another dictatorship. You would think people could see past their blind opposition to Bush to realize that maybe staying in Iraq longer might be prudent.
Truly sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Perhaps, but a lot of the attacks in Iraq have been made against other Muslims, not just US forces. Plus whilst Al Qaeda might be targetting Americans, the Sunnis are more likely to be targetting Shi'ites, and the Saddam loyalists will be attacking everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Yes it's an unrealistic deadline, and it's morons like this that will most assuredly cause a power struggle in Iraq that will lead to, you guessed it, another dictatorship. You would think people could see past their blind opposition to Bush to realize that maybe staying in Iraq longer might be prudent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Understand that Bush is the one who is sticking to the deadline; he has the power to extend it. I believe he's sticking to it because he wants Iraq off the front pages by election time so it doesn't become an election issue.
Understand that Bush is the one who is sticking to the deadline; he has the power to extend it. I believe he's sticking to it because he wants Iraq off the front pages by election time so it doesn't become an election issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure. But all you said was 'reduce' the number of attacks. And the Americans are one potential target that are gone.
But you're right. Bush is under tremendous political pressure from many groups to get out of Iraq, even if wants to stay. His choice is:
a) Stay in their longer than anticipated (and get called a liar again) and then get voted out, allowing Kerry to pull the troops out ANYWAY.
b) Pull them out, and hopefully get relected. If the power vacuum creates another terrorist-sympathetic dictator maybe go back into Iraq. Sadly I think the leftist outcry would be so great there's almost no possibility that we'd go back. But at least that chance is better than if Kerry was around.
It's not guareenteed. The US is assuming that whatever body they hand power over to will let US forces stay. If the Iraqis say on July 1st "Hey US: get out" the US will have to. Admittedly its a very good bet that the Iraqis will want the US to stay, but anything's possible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a) Stay in their longer than anticipated (and get called a liar again) and then get voted out, allowing Kerry to pull the troops out ANYWAY.
b) Pull them out, and hopefully get relected. If the power vacuum creates another terrorist-sympathetic dictator maybe go back into Iraq. Sadly I think the leftist outcry would be so great there's almost no possibility that we'd go back. But at least that chance is better than if Kerry was around.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Kerry is elected, rather like if here Latham is elected, a major reason will be that the public doesn't want to be involved in Iraq any longer. If Kerry says he's gonna pull out of Iraq and he's elected, then the people have spoken: that's the way a republic works. If Bush remains in power, it's a vote of confidance from the public that the Iraq action was, to a certain degree, justified.
What would you rather our political leaders do; ignore us? You're making Kerry out to be a bad guy here when really all he'll be doing is following through on campaign promises.
Don't like a government?
Invade them, pave it over, and then follow up with a quick and painless 1 year rebuilding scheme for teh win. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look out, Spain. (;
Don't like a government?
Invade them, pave it over, and then follow up with a quick and painless 1 year rebuilding scheme for teh win. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look out, Spain. (; <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
are you trying to imply that the USA will invade Spain?
lol good one
Actually yes, I would. At least ignore the minority. Do you have a source that says a majority of Americans want to leave Iraq? I would have to analyze the poll as well. For example what question was asked? ie:
1. Do you think we should pull our troops out of Iraq so that all our brave soldiers can come home and not die under the desert son and stop being the global police?
OR
2. Do you think we should pull our troops out of Iraq even though it would cause a power vacuum that would make a year's effort in blood sweat and toil completly in vain?
Bush should be stressing that second point. I'm sure reasonable men and women would agree with him.
I don't have a source and I never said that I did. What I did say is that if Kerry is elected and part of his campaign is a pledge to remove the troops from Iraq, then a majority of people in the US want those troops out.
It's simple democracy at work: Bush says the troops will stay, Kerry says they'll leave. Whoever is elected will show what the people think.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It could very well set a new stage in US foreign politics.
Don't like a government?
Invade them, pave it over, and then follow up with a quick and painless 1 year rebuilding scheme for teh win.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love it how you believe that the deaths of over 500 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, plus over $100 billion in US taxpayer money is "painless".
Ryo, in realistic terms that is such a miniscule price for changing an entire country.
It is, like paying 50 cents for a car. A decent one, too.
"What I did say is that if Kerry is elected and part of his campaign is a pledge to remove the troops from Iraq, then a majority of people in the US want those troops out."
I love it how you believe that the deaths of over 500 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, plus over $100 billion in US taxpayer money is "painless".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ryo, in realistic terms that is such a miniscule price for changing an entire country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn, I could burn $5 right now and it wouldn't financially damage me much at all, but I would be a fool for doing so.
But Ryo is only looking at one side of the issue: How many people have died during the occupation, and how many <b>would have died</b> if there was no occupation? All those idiots in their global day of action never answer this.
It is estimated Saddam killed 25000 people a year during his reign. Those 500 people did not die in vain, and that $100 billion will be worth whatever corporate squandering occurs. I would gladly give Iraq's oil to Halliburton than Saddam. Saddam was a master at cashing in on his oil reserves for weapons to be used against his own people. Now that truly is "Oil-for-blood". But once again, the protestors will never mention this.
Those who want the occupation to end are simply insane. It might be the majority, but it's wrong in every conceivable manner.
"What I did say is that if Kerry is elected and part of his campaign is a pledge to remove the troops from Iraq, then a majority of people in the US want those troops out."
I love it how you believe that the deaths of over 500 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, plus over $100 billion in US taxpayer money is "painless".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ryo, in realistic terms that is such a miniscule price for changing an entire country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn, I could burn $5 right now and it wouldn't financially damage me much at all, but I would be a fool for doing so.
But Ryo is only looking at one side of the issue: How many people have died during the occupation, and how many <b>would have died</b> if there was no occupation? All those idiots in their global day of action never answer this.
It is estimated Saddam killed 25000 people a year during his reign. Those 500 people did not die in vain, and that $100 billion will be worth whatever corporate squandering occurs. I would gladly give Iraq's oil to Halliburton than Saddam. Saddam was a master at cashing in on his oil reserves for weapons to be used against his own people. Now that truly is "Oil-for-blood". But once again, the protestors will never mention this.
Those who want the occupation to end are simply insane. It might be the majority, but it's wrong in every conceivable manner. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where were the protestors during the Clinton administration?
I seriously think most of the protestors were nothing more than tools riled up by the demoncratic propaganda machine
I don't believe there were any demostrations, but there was no war then. Clinton's reign saw the emergence of rallies against free-trade and big corporations.
But... The source of the funds for these rallies should be looked at also.
Excuse me? I participated in said marches and there was a very wide and diverse range of people, from hippies to buisinessmen. 2 MILLION people marched against war in Australia; can you seriously by any stretch of the imagination say that they were all simply brain-washed by liberal propaganda? That's 10% of the Australian population.
And please, stop calling them demoncrats. Whilst I am not an American or religious, I find you calling a left wing organisation demonic rather insulting. I do not insult right wing organistions in this manner and I would appreciate if you extended me the same courtesy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ryo, in realistic terms that is such a miniscule price for changing an entire country.
It is, like paying 50 cents for a car. A decent one, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Forlorn, it's not a miniscule price. Not when you ask the families of those who've died. Not when you realise just what that money could have bought for American familes in need. And what have we gotten back in exchange? The hatred of more of the Middle East. Constant attacks on our soldiers. A propaganda bonanza for Al Qaeda. A country that is about one step away from falling apart into civil war. A massive drain on our economy. Diplomatic relations strained with Europe and Asia.
It is, like paying 100 billion dollars for a burnt-out hulk that killed thousands when it exploded. Yeah, what a great bargin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But Ryo is only looking at one side of the issue: How many people have died during the occupation, and how many would have died if there was no occupation? All those idiots in their global day of action never answer this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't care. What I do care about is OUR people getting killed and OUR money, the taxes we pay from the work WE do, going towards people on the other side of world as opposed to us. I cannot for any stretch of the imagination see why we should be helping Iraqis when there are Australian and American citizens who desperatly need that money. Fix our own countries and help our own citizens before we squander countless billions on others.
Finally, on behalf of myself and the 2 million other Australians who marched against war, I would like to thank you for calling us all "idiots". Yes, it is indeed a proud day for democracy when we are insulted for speaking our political thoughts out loud. I guess we should all just crawl back into our hippee communes and eat some babies.
It's amazing what the Republican propaganda machine will convince you to believe.
Ah, I started to type more but I'm too tired. But for those of you who will rip into the knee-jerk Clinton comparisons . . . honestly.
1. I honestly don't care. What I do care about is OUR people getting killed and OUR money,...
2. Finally, on behalf of myself and the 2 million other Australians who marched against war, I would like to thank you for calling us all "idiots". Yes, it is indeed a proud day for democracy when we are insulted for speaking our political thoughts out loud. I guess we should all just crawl back into our hippee communes and eat some babies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. That's your own geocentric perspective I guess. As a globalist, I would like to see a more active role of nations, not just the US (but seeing as the UN is reluctant to do anything, see the latest situation in Sudan), but any nation in resolving human rights abuses.
If you don't think your tax dollars should go to help Iraqis that's your business.
Maybe that money would be better spent helping Australian farmers and their locust problem, but I think it was better spent helping Iraqis and their torture problem. Pound for pound that money saved more people than if it were used domestically.
Perhaps you should make a sign like: AUSTRALIA LIFE > IRAQI LIFE
2. Wow you actually marched. We had a similar rally in Edmonton.
I've been to at least 10 different anti-war sites. <b>Not a single one</b> mention Saddam's atrocities, <b>not a single one</b> mention the UN corruption, <b>not a single one</b> offered any alternate plans to deposing Saddam. It was as if the man never existed. All they were interested in was getting Americans out of Iraq (which would cause a massive and bloody power vacuum) which is already happening on June 30th. Is that not quick enough for them?
What I did see was lots of 'blood-for-oil!!!!' and 'Bombs not peace' and nice little caricatures but <b>no issues</b> and <b>no alternatives</b> to war. That's my problem with (most) of the anti-war side, and that's why they're morons. At least the pro-war sites recognize the civilian deaths and the Hallibruton contracts. The civilian deaths clocked way under any given Saddam year, and given a choice between Saddam getting oil money and Halliburton oil money, my vote most assuredly goes to Halliburton.
The most ironic thing? I saw no protests against Saddam, North Korea, Syria, or even the CURRENT Sudan genocide/slavery. Now why is that?
I didn't insult democracy, I insulted the protestors. You have the right to march to your heart's content, just as I have the right to laugh and insult you. THERE'S YOUR DEMOCRACY, to which I'm a lover of. It goes both ways Ryo.
Othell: You can see the list of supporters here:
<a href='http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html' target='_blank'>here</a>
Socialists, communists, feminists, muslims, among others.
Anyway we're getting off-topic. I think we can all agree that if the US were to leave right now Iraq would erupt into even more chaos than it already is. June30th is probably too early, but Bush is facing so much pressure from anti-stability groups that his presidency is at stake.
Well, our political leaders arn't voted into power to help others. They are there to put their own citizens first. After all, we're the one's paying the taxes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Wow you actually marched. We had a similar rally in Edmonton.
I've been to at least 10 different anti-war sites. Not a single one mention Saddam's atrocities, not a single one mention the UN corruption, not a single one offered any alternate plans to deposing Saddam. It was as if the man never existed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I marched against the war before it started. That's when the really big protests were. I havn't marched since, and I find most of the socialists' reasoning for leaving Iraq rather dodgy. I do think that the US should hand power over to the UN and I do think there is a conflict of intrest between certain members of the Bush administration and certain US companies. I also think that we've gotten ourselves stuck in a conflict that we may never be able to win and which will cost us far more than what our leaders told us before the war.
The marches I participated in had a simple alternative to invading Iraq: don't invade. We were not convinced, as much of the world was not convinced, that Saddam had WMDs. We were not convinced, as much of the world was not convinced, that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. We were not convinced, as much of the world was not convinced, that invasion was the only option.
Most of the "killing civilians", "bombs for oil" etc was socialist propaganda; myself, like most of the people in these rallies, were ordainary people from diverse political backgrounds who didn't want to go to war for the reasons I listed above. The last rally I participated in, a few days into the war, was a testament to that fact. Myself and around 5,000 others marched through the main street of Brisbane, and were chanting "no war", when suddenly the march stopped. At the head of the march a group of socialists had stopped in front of a large corperate building. They then proceeded for the next hour to harrange the croud about how corperations were evil and how companies such as this (I believe it was Boeing) built weapons of war to kill Palestinian children. You know what happened? The march vanished. People just drifted away, leaving the socialists shouting tired old slogans at other socialists. There would have been 100 people left at the end, every one of them a socialist. Everyone else, myself included, just left, because we hadn't marched for the reasons the socialists were giving.
We didn't like Saddam, but did we think Australian lives and money should be spent getting rid of him? No. We didn't see a threat. Neither did much of the world. And looking at post-war Iraq, with a complete lack of WMDs or links to Osama Bin Laden, I must say that we have been largely justified.
Sorry I flew off the handle earlier; I just got a bit heated. No hard feelings? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sorry I flew off the handle earlier; I just got a bit heated. No hard feelings? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No problem Ryo, I didn't mean to call you specifically an 'idiot' by proxy. I posted in another thread who the <a href='http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3' target='_blank'>real idiots</a> are, that is those who do not bother to look at both sides of the issue.
I actually 'marched' in Sweden before the war started as well. There are legitimate reasons for not going to war, but the anti-war side gets too caught up in their caricatures and slogans to really do things like cause-effect and trade-off analyses.
The reasons you listed, no links, no WMDs, etc are perfectly fine. However it's important that both the pro-war side and the anti-war side look at the evidence that existed prior to Iraq. For instance it wasn't just Bush that thought there were WMDs, and Iraq did have at least <b>some</b> terrorist connections. The question is if this evidence was enough to justify invasion. You say no, I say yes. The important thing is that we at least have looked at both sides. However when doing anti-war marches it's never wise to bring up opposing views. it seems both sides are guilty of the bias they accuse each other of.
This latest march confuses the hell out of me though. What do the protestors want <b>at this point</b>? The war already happened. From what I can see they want the occupation to end which is a) already planned and b) should not be done prematurely lest they throw Iraq into a power struggle.
And if they're not protesting against the occupation then what's left? The war? If they're protesting against a war that already happened it seems more like 'finger wagging' than anything.
Well the socialists at my university want an "end to the corperate occupation of Iraq". Not many people sympathise with that.
What people are increasingly wanting though is to wash our hands of the whole thing. Get out of Iraq, get the troops home and stop spending money on reconstruction. There's also increasing unease in the fact that no WMDs have been found, and that was the main reason we went to war. I believe that a combination of these factors will lead to both Bush and Howard being voted out at the end of this year, and subsequently we'll probably withdraw from Iraq, whether for the better or for the worst.
Note that I don't believe democracy can work in Iraq anyway, so as far as I'm concerned we should just cut our losses and get out. Far better than spending billions of dollars, hundreds of lives and years of labor trying to create an impossible dream.
No.
Not a very good outlook on things... So why do you think democracy cannot work? Do you think the Iraqi people are too "backwards" for such a thing?
In the end I have a feeling we'll have to agree to disagree on most things now because of your pessimistic outlook. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways... Here are photos from a rally in San. Fran. Hope everyone else gets a good laugh at many of these also.
<a href='http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_march_20_2004/' target='_blank'>http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_march_20_2004/</a>
Of course I don't believe in such an outlandish and out-dated concept. Why did you jump to that conclusion?
I don't believe democracy can work in Iraq because the nation is comprised of varying religious and ethnic groups all of whom are in direct conflict with one another. There has been a long history of fighting between these groups and an equally long history of oppression by these groups over the other groups. Distrust and hostility run deep. It will take a tremendous leap of faith for these people to willingly accept a leader who is not from their particular group.
Whilst the US hangs around they'll be able to maintain a democratic government purely through force, but I don't believe the country can hold together once the US leaves. Old hatreds are just too strong.
I'm a natural pessimist by the way. Comes from studying history I guess.
Of course I don't believe in such an outlandish and out-dated concept. Why did you jump to that conclusion?
I don't believe democracy can work in Iraq because the nation is comprised of varying religious and ethnic groups all of whom are in direct conflict with one another. There has been a long history of fighting between these groups and an equally long history of oppression by these groups over the other groups. Distrust and hostility run deep. It will take a tremendous leap of faith for these people to willingly accept a leader who is not from their particular group.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have the link to the report right here, but prior to our occupation, the CIA was in full agreement with you.