Guest SP-1 Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'm watching it now on television. Dan Rather reports that the move is possibly because insurgents were planning wisespread attacks on the scheduled date and they wanted to throw them off-balance. Discuss amongst yourselves.
NoCalMike Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I am not even sure what this fully means in the short term scenario anyway. I mean, what exactly will be different? It is something that sounds nice as a catchphrase or a tagline, but other then that at least in the short term, what exactly is different?
Guest SideFXs Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 The Iraqis are governing themselves, 2 days in advance fuko!! And Pres. Bush surprises the liberals again! And the terrorist loose their power card , with the hostages.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I wouldn't say they lose their power card. They might be a little more pissed off with us now, but their ability to carry out acts of violence isn't all that decreased. Mike, as far as I can tell from the report, it sounds like the interim government of Iraqi leaders is in power now. The United States military forces are still under their own command system, however. I don't think anyone was expecting us to pack it in and leave as soon as the new government took over anyways, though. The specifics beyond that aren't very clear to me though, so I'll leave it open to someone else to dig into that a little deeper.
NoCalMike Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I wouldn't say they lose their power card. They might be a little more pissed off with us now, but their ability to carry out acts of violence isn't all that decreased. Mike, as far as I can tell from the report, it sounds like the interim government of Iraqi leaders is in power now. The United States military forces are still under their own command system, however. I don't think anyone was expecting us to pack it in and leave as soon as the new government took over anyways, though. The specifics beyond that aren't very clear to me though, so I'll leave it open to someone else to dig into that a little deeper. well one thing for sure is, if american troops leave ANYTIME SOON, Iraq will be pretty much in a bigger mess then before the war.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'd agree with you there. Though on the one hand I'm just about ready for us to leave and let them sort it out on their own. Let them see how much we're keeping at bay. Unfortunately this could also potentially lead to some charismatic terrorist leader rising from the in-fighting and we'd have a big problem on our hands.
NoCalMike Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'd agree with you there. Though on the one hand I'm just about ready for us to leave and let them sort it out on their own. Let them see how much we're keeping at bay. Unfortunately this could also potentially lead to some charismatic terrorist leader rising from the in-fighting and we'd have a big problem on our hands. well yeah, in a perfect world you can quarrantine all the baddies in one city in Iraq and then just start unloading, but in guerilla warfare, that just isn't how it works.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Which is the biggest problem in a War on Terror. It's pretty much all guerilla. I'm a pretty big proponent of withdrawing from most international affairs and concentrating on defending ourselves, but I'm sure there are some negatives to that I'm not thinking of.
tommytomlin Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Mainly that you can't defend yourselves if you withdraw from international affairs.
Jobber of the Week Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'm now taking a pool on how soon it is until the top dog of the new Iraqi government is killed by a religious fundamentalist uprising. I say, $5 on a week.
Lightning Flik Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 JotW, I say at least a month. Just because they'd like to make sure the top dog is actually using his power.
Art Sandusky Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'll bet a dollar they've got another dictator within 10 years.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Mainly that you can't defend yourselves if you withdraw from international affairs. I'd still keep intelligence and diplomatic operations going. But I'd lean towards keeping our military closer to home and in a more defensive mode.
Vyce Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I am not even sure what this fully means in the short term scenario anyway. I mean, what exactly will be different? It is something that sounds nice as a catchphrase or a tagline, but other then that at least in the short term, what exactly is different? What does this mean? Simply this: we now don't have to worry about insurgents trying to perform a terrorist action on the 30th to interrupt the transfer of power, because we've already gone and done it behind their backs. In that regard, this move was brilliant. The insurgents will no doubt be spurred to action in retaliation for this, but still - they won't have ruined the transfer like they no doubt intended to do. It's a small victory, but we'll take it.
Art Sandusky Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 We'd never actually say we did it to prevent an attack though, for two reasons. One, it would show that we weren't confident in our ability to stop one, and it would prompt what can be called an "oh YEAH? Watch THIS then!" reaction, as if we're challenging them to outsmart us.
Jobber of the Week Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 and it would prompt what can be called an "oh YEAH? Watch THIS then!" reaction, as if we're challenging them to outsmart us. What? You think President Bring-Em-On is afraid to write checks with his mouth that the troops can't cash?
Guest MikeSC Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'm now taking a pool on how soon it is until the top dog of the new Iraqi government is killed by a religious fundamentalist uprising. I say, $5 on a week. He won't be killed. He's actually VERY well-liked by the Iraqi people. Terrorists kill him and they might as well sign their own death warrant in that country. The current head has a roughly 80% approval rating in Iraq. Terrorists may be sub-human --- but they're not completely idiotic. What? You think President Bring-Em-On is afraid to write checks with his mouth that the troops can't cash? Nah, he writes checks he intends to cash --- unlike President Clinton. -=Mike
Art Sandusky Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Man, we oughta vote that Clinton character out of office. Waitasec.
Guest MikeSC Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Man, we oughta vote that Clinton character out of office. Waitasec. Well, he never had a mandate anyway. -=Mike
Vyce Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 and it would prompt what can be called an "oh YEAH? Watch THIS then!" reaction, as if we're challenging them to outsmart us. What? You think President Bring-Em-On is afraid to write checks with his mouth that the troops can't cash? What the hell are you even babbling on about now? We've transferred power in Iraq without the insurgents doing something typically crazy like blowing up a building to stop it from happening. The transfer of power was done without some extremist killing a few dozen people in a symbolic strike against Iraq’s new sovereignty. That’s GOOD news. Can’t you just accept that for ONE minute? When the sixty seconds is up, you can go right back to betting in your Iraq leader death pool.
Guest MikeSC Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 and it would prompt what can be called an "oh YEAH? Watch THIS then!" reaction, as if we're challenging them to outsmart us. What? You think President Bring-Em-On is afraid to write checks with his mouth that the troops can't cash? What the hell are you even babbling on about now? We've transferred power in Iraq without the insurgents doing something typically crazy like blowing up a building to stop it from happening. The transfer of power was done without some extremist killing a few dozen people in a symbolic strike against Iraq’s new sovereignty. That’s GOOD news. Can’t you just accept that for ONE minute? When the sixty seconds is up, you can go right back to betting in your Iraq leader death pool. Don't you get it, Vyce? ANYTHING that MIGHT be something Bush could CONSIDER supporting, JOTW just has the knee-jerk reaction to oppose. Now, if we could get Bush to say he's TOTALLY in favor of, say, breathing --- we might have a problem solver. -=Mike
Rob E Dangerously Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I'm sure Ambassador Negroponte will help Iraq utilize this freedom.
Styles Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Brilliant move. I was seriously worried that the world was going to blow up on June 30th, but we were a step ahead. I really want this to work out so we can get our troops out of there and declare this one a sucess, but the new government is going to have a lot of shit to deal with...
Guest MikeSC Posted June 29, 2004 Report Posted June 29, 2004 Brilliant move. I was seriously worried that the world was going to blow up on June 30th, but we were a step ahead. I really want this to work out so we can get our troops out of there and declare this one a sucess, but the new government is going to have a lot of shit to deal with... Fortunately, the guy in charge is awfully damned popular over there. Anybody kills him and there's a good chance the Iraqis will finally stand up wipe out the terrorists in a manner that would make us blush. -=Mike ...And kudos to the President for not hijacking this moment to make himself look good...
MarvinisaLunatic Posted June 29, 2004 Report Posted June 29, 2004 From MSNBC: BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein will appear before an Iraqi judge in the “next few days” to face charges related to his 23 years in power, Iraqi and coalition officials said Monday. advertisement A military spokesman said he will remain in a U.S.-run jail for now because Iraqi government does not have a suitable prison. The remarks came only hours after the U.S.-led coalition handed power to an Iraqi interim government in a nearly secret ceremony in Baghdad. No further specifics on the timing were available. “Over the next few days, the Iraqi authorities will be taking custody of 12 senior members of the previous regime, including Saddam Hussein,” said Salem Chalabi, an Iraqi official in charge of setting up a tribunal. In U.S. hands The ousted Iraqi leader, however, will remain in the hands of U.S. troops, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told Associated Press Radio on Monday. “Prime Minister (Iyad) Allawi has said there are no facilities that he has available to hold Saddam in the amount of security that would be required, so he has asked the multinational forces to retain physical custody while legal custody is transferred over to the people of Iraq,” he said. But the Jordanian lawyer claiming to represent Saddam said the ousted leader should be released because handing him over to Iraq’s new government would violate international law. Ziad al-Khasawneh, one of 20 Jordanian and foreign lawyers appointed by Saddam’s wife, Sajidah, said the United States has no legal basis to keep prisoners, including Saddam, now that it has transferred authority to an interim Iraqi government. “International law dictates that in such a situation, the occupation authority must release all prisoners of war — including Mr. President Saddam — and let them choose to leave to any country they wish to go to and under the protection of the occupying power and the United Nations,” al-Khasawneh told The Associated Press. “The United States would violate international law if it handed the president (Saddam) or other prisoners of war over to the interim Iraqi government.” Saddam was granted prisoner of war status after his capture. Although he is alleged to have committed crimes against his own people, he has not been charged with any offense. So do they let Saddam go or violate international law?
Guest MikeSC Posted June 29, 2004 Report Posted June 29, 2004 If he'd like, we could ALWAYS arrest him as an enemy combatant and hold him in our prisons. If that is the lawyer's desire. Somehow, I doubt Saddam would like living in general pop of a prison. -=Mike
Jingus Posted June 29, 2004 Report Posted June 29, 2004 Somehow, I doubt that the US forces are shaking in their boots at the thought of some Jordanian lawyers fucking them up. For that matter, how could a lawyer in a foreign country fuck with either Iraq or America on any issue whatsoever? And exactly what "international law" was he citing there? I've never heard of any law that let genocidal tyrants go free if their former countries didn't have a prison secure enough to hold him themselves.
Vyce Posted June 29, 2004 Report Posted June 29, 2004 But the Jordanian lawyer claiming to represent Saddam said the ousted leader should be released because handing him over to Iraq’s new government would violate international law. This lawyer either has balls so big that they could successfully orbit the Earth as twin moons, or he's totally out of his fucking mind. Either way, it ain't happening.
Rob E Dangerously Posted June 29, 2004 Report Posted June 29, 2004 Yep.. Iraq is now free! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apm...Iraq%20US%20Law BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. led-coalition, facing a Wednesday deadline to hand back power, has put in place major legal revisions that would force Iraqis to get drivers' licenses, obey traffic laws, ban certain people from holding office and place American contractors above the law.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now