NationStates Jolt Archive

How many people actually believe that the USA is going to give sovereignty to the Iraqi's on June 30th? I'm expecting a newscast from an Iraqi delagate saying he wants the US presence to stay in Iraq. However the image of the soldier pointing a gun to the back of the delegates head will be digitally removed from the video. But that is just my take, I could be very much wrong...

We are going to hand it over, But US troops will stay there for a while.

Yep they will have "Soverignty" But not control over their country.

Oh come on. What exactly do you want us to do? Just get up, leave, and let them fix their own problems?

Oh come on. What exactly do you want us to do? Just get up, leave, and let them fix their own problems?



Would be fun to watch. :)

Oh come on. What exactly do you want us to do? Just get up, leave, and let them fix their own problems?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

For once, we're in agreement. To leave now or even in the medium term would be a negation of our responsibilities.

They wont leave, they want control over the oil. hmmm.... whats next Russia or Canada?

Considering the fact that the interim government has already said it would be highly unlikely for them to ask for an immediate withdrawl of US troops, we're going to be there for the forseeable future. As for the sovergnty issue, who knows exactly how much control they'll have. The government council is basically handpicked by the US, so even though they will be separate, they'll remember exactly who put them there (sort of like Saudi Arabia). There was an interesting sign today, though, when the Iraqi security chief requested US troop presence and we didn't comply. Apparently, in Najaf, I believe, the Iraqi police force attempted to arrest some suspected theives and the al-Sadr militia attacked them. When the security chief asked for US troops, the commander said something to the effect of, "No, he's going to have to figure out how to solve this problem himself." Kind of interesting, in a violent way.

Considering the fact that the interim government has already said it would be highly unlikely for them to ask for an immediate withdrawl of US troops, we're going to be there for the forseeable future. As for the sovergnty issue, who knows exactly how much control they'll have. The government council is basically handpicked by the US, so even though they will be separate, they'll remember exactly who put them there (sort of like Saudi Arabia). There was an interesting sign today, though, when the Iraqi security chief requested US troop presence and we didn't comply. Apparently, in Najaf, I believe, the Iraqi police force attempted to arrest some suspected theives and the al-Sadr militia attacked them. When the security chief asked for US troops, the commander said something to the effect of, "No, he's going to have to figure out how to solve this problem himself." Kind of interesting, in a violent way.
I can see the twisted logic behind this move or non-move on the part of the troops. Bush wants the handoff to the Iraqis while there is no ongoing hostilities. This would make it appear to be a peaceful transition.

Just my thoughts.

I'm even willing to go one further, Canuck, and admit the possibility that the Bush administration, in an effort to stem the tide of bad PR that's coming out of Iraq, actually wants to see some sort of stable, self-sufficent government that is capable of jumping through some security hoops. It's just too bad that at this point it's, at most, a pyric victory.

I'm even willing to go one further, Canuck, and admit the possibility that the Bush administration, in an effort to stem the tide of bad PR that's coming out of Iraq, actually wants to see some sort of stable, self-sufficent government that is capable of jumping through some security hoops. It's just too bad that at this point it's, at most, a pyric victory.
This may be, however, the best way to ensure that Iraqis can control Iraq. I'm sure most of us can commit to being there until the fall of 2006. However, any longer, and the Iraqi government will turn far too dependent on us.
Key areas of sovereignty will, btw, be handed over. The ministry of finance, education, interior, justice, and others, as well as their courts, oil supplies, and even some security defenses will be handed over. The only things not handed over will be the army, and that'll surely be handed over by December of 2005, when an elected government will take power. The election will be, btw, UN supervised.

I'm even willing to go one further, Canuck, and admit the possibility that the Bush administration, in an effort to stem the tide of bad PR that's coming out of Iraq, actually wants to see some sort of stable, self-sufficent government that is capable of jumping through some security hoops. It's just too bad that at this point it's, at most, a pyric victory.
This may be, however, the best way to ensure that Iraqis can control Iraq. I'm sure most of us can commit to being there until the fall of 2006. However, any longer, and the Iraqi government will turn far too dependent on us.
Key areas of sovereignty will, btw, be handed over. The ministry of finance, education, interior, justice, and others, as well as their courts, oil supplies, and even some security defenses will be handed over. The only things not handed over will be the army, and that'll surely be handed over by December of 2005, when an elected government will take power. The election will be, btw, UN supervised.
You forgot about the Iraqi economy. You do remember Bremer's Orders? Foreigners can control 100% of the Iraqi economy, including financial institutions. Just about the only thing that the Iraqis can control is natural resources, such as oil.

You forgot about the Iraqi economy. You do remember Bremer's Orders? Foreigners can control 100% of the Iraqi economy, including financial institutions. Just about the only thing that the Iraqis can control is natural resources, such as oil.

They can? I never heard that. Do you have a link?

You forgot about the Iraqi economy. You do remember Bremer's Orders? Foreigners can control 100% of the Iraqi economy, including financial institutions. Just about the only thing that the Iraqis can control is natural resources, such as oil.

They can? I never heard that. Do you have a link?
Yeah I have a few:

http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-03-10/news.html

The final authority lies in Bremer--a man who has taken unprecedented steps to promote U.S. and foreign business interests in Iraq, while exploiting Iraqi interests. He unilaterally passed orders to lower taxes for international businesses and to open Iraqi resources to foreign interests, with the exception of oil. Under Bremer's orders, these companies then have the right to remove 100 percent of their profit from the local economy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1176394,00.html

The document, signed two weeks ago, states: "The laws, regulations, orders, and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority ... shall remain in force." These laws include Bremer's Order 39, which drastically changes Iraq's previous constitution to allow foreign companies to own 100% of Iraqi assets (except in natural resources), and to take 100% of their profits out of the country, paving the way for massive privatisations.

But defying Bremer's orders won't be an option after the "handover". The interim constitution clearly states that the only way these laws can be changed is by a three-quarters vote "by the Iraqi Transitional Government". According to the same constitution, that body won't exist until elections are held in early 2005.

In other words, on June 30, the occupation won't end, it will simply be outsourced to a group of hand-picked Iraqi politicians with no democratic mandate or sovereign power. With its new Iraqi face, the government will be free from the ugly perception that Iraq's national assets are being auctioned off by foreigners - and unencumbered by input from Iraqi voters who might have ideas of their own.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Bremer Order #39: Foreign Investment

The order on foreign investment five key elements:
(1) Privatization of state-owned enterprises;
(2) 100% foreign ownership of businesses in all sectors except oil and mineral extraction, banks and insurance companies (the latter two are addressed in a separate order);
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms;
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all funds associated with the investment, including, but not limited to, profits; and
(5) 40 year ownership licenses which have the option of being renewed.

You forgot about the Iraqi economy. You do remember Bremer's Orders? Foreigners can control 100% of the Iraqi economy, including financial institutions. Just about the only thing that the Iraqis can control is natural resources, such as oil.

They can? I never heard that. Do you have a link?
Yeah I have a few:

http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-03-10/news.html

The final authority lies in Bremer--a man who has taken unprecedented steps to promote U.S. and foreign business interests in Iraq, while exploiting Iraqi interests. He unilaterally passed orders to lower taxes for international businesses and to open Iraqi resources to foreign interests, with the exception of oil. Under Bremer's orders, these companies then have the right to remove 100 percent of their profit from the local economy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1176394,00.html

The document, signed two weeks ago, states: "The laws, regulations, orders, and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority ... shall remain in force." These laws include Bremer's Order 39, which drastically changes Iraq's previous constitution to allow foreign companies to own 100% of Iraqi assets (except in natural resources), and to take 100% of their profits out of the country, paving the way for massive privatisations.

But defying Bremer's orders won't be an option after the "handover". The interim constitution clearly states that the only way these laws can be changed is by a three-quarters vote "by the Iraqi Transitional Government". According to the same constitution, that body won't exist until elections are held in early 2005.

In other words, on June 30, the occupation won't end, it will simply be outsourced to a group of hand-picked Iraqi politicians with no democratic mandate or sovereign power. With its new Iraqi face, the government will be free from the ugly perception that Iraq's national assets are being auctioned off by foreigners - and unencumbered by input from Iraqi voters who might have ideas of their own.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Bremer Order #39: Foreign Investment

The order on foreign investment five key elements:
(1) Privatization of state-owned enterprises;
(2) 100% foreign ownership of businesses in all sectors except oil and mineral extraction, banks and insurance companies (the latter two are addressed in a separate order);
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms;
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all funds associated with the investment, including, but not limited to, profits; and
(5) 40 year ownership licenses which have the option of being renewed.

Wow, that is truly disturbing. Thanks for the info, Canuk...I think. :(

I'm even willing to go one further, Canuck, and admit the possibility that the Bush administration, in an effort to stem the tide of bad PR that's coming out of Iraq, actually wants to see some sort of stable, self-sufficent government that is capable of jumping through some security hoops. It's just too bad that at this point it's, at most, a pyric victory.
This may be, however, the best way to ensure that Iraqis can control Iraq. I'm sure most of us can commit to being there until the fall of 2006. However, any longer, and the Iraqi government will turn far too dependent on us.
Key areas of sovereignty will, btw, be handed over. The ministry of finance, education, interior, justice, and others, as well as their courts, oil supplies, and even some security defenses will be handed over. The only things not handed over will be the army, and that'll surely be handed over by December of 2005, when an elected government will take power. The election will be, btw, UN supervised.
You forgot about the Iraqi economy. You do remember Bremer's Orders? Foreigners can control 100% of the Iraqi economy, including financial institutions. Just about the only thing that the Iraqis can control is natural resources, such as oil.
That's great news! The influx of foreign capital should buoy the Iraqi economy, as well as allow the Iraqi government to set up an enforcable minimum wage to keep up with inflation. It should be enforcable, as foreign companies tend to be more accountable than third-world businesses. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for Iraq. If worked with properly, it can be extremely good.
I am disturbed, however, that oil hasn't turned over to the control of foreign businesses. It'll take Iraq far in developing their fields, securing and building pipelines, and pumping foreign capital into the hands of Iraqi workers.
But, all in all, this is good news. Besides, it'll spur local competition.

The main reason that I do not like Bush is because after 200 or so years of military alliances (before we were neutral...) and all of the work involved stopping other countries from taking each other over, and building allliances, Bush basically came in and said "Screw all of you, we are the greatest f@!kers here, you'd die without us, so we will do whatever we want" He messed up our foreign policy for the future. Furthermore, as Americans, we are considered the police of the world. Not the instigators. In fighting this war we look like hyppocites and fools. I'm not condoning Sadaam's actions, however he was no part of our war on terror until the military couldn't find Osama so they needed a scapegoat. The media twisted it around so the average layman believes that Sadaam had a part of plotting behind 9/11. That is the only reason that Bush isn't being impeached right now..I mean come on, we are fighting the wrong group here. To them, WE are the terrorists. Whether you wish to visualize that or not...I believe it holds some shread of validity.

hum

iraq is currently a mess, regarldess of soverinty issuse the forgein troops (largley US) will have to stay as the only organised body

I did'nt support the war as it was likley to lead to heavy loss of life, which it has, but now we cannot pull out as the would make matters worse, thier just a chance thing could turn out OK.

Incidently another example of the anoying problem whereby consveratives can just say we will DO THIS, where as liberals have to make a far more complex argument which pay attention to the real facts.... but i digresss

the economy news is disturbing and understandable in turns

disturbing in the sense that it was impossed from above (not that thier much choice mind).

understandable because forgein ivestment is needed and has to come from somewhere

but the conditions seem unsesacarily harsh

ability to take 100% of erarning out for example seems a little harsh

as to control of oil hum, the cynic in me says this is so that people cannot claim its just a war for oil, while at the same time as the only industry under thier control they'd want to increase production

sadly iraq before and after the invasion was a mess, now its a fractured mess, with luck something better will emrege but it reamins to be seen

oh a to the person who said well be out by 2006 that seems hugly optomisitic to me, remeber troops are still in kosovs, bosinia, afganistain and a hundred other UN sponsored peacekeeping operation. iraq will be no different, peace keeping is not headline grabbing but is very important.

when the last time you heard a headling from bosina?,

We have to give them sovereignty, it isn't ours to "give," technically.