The US hands over power in Iraq

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:16 am

It seems two days before they officially would hand over power to the new iterim iraqi government, power has now been trasfered. (with some reservation). This iterim governments tast is to lead the country to election in 2005. (read on CNN.com )

Now - it will be interesting to see the development "down there" from now-on, because now the (late) argument (for the war) of creating a democratic government/state comes to show.

Also, on a similar note, I read on a danish media that the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CAP) can't account for a huuuuge amount of money, that seems to have gone missing. Something like $15 billions (rough calculation based on amount in d.kr) The money is supposedly iraqis that have been "frozen" around the world. I've not found this on cnn or any other international media yet, but will look closer for it, and see if I can't find a link in english.

edit: had typed millions instead of billions, corrected now

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:35 am

It will be interesting to see if this date will be more than just ceremonial (meaning that Iraq will actually control it's affairs). The presence of US troups is causing massive insurgencies against all foreigners, and I wonder how the new puppet regime will control it.

*shrugs* I hope I'm going to be pleasently surprised if the new gouvernment turns out to be a success. I still don't really see how you can forcably give democracy to a region that doesn't know what it is, but that's just me.

i4v02v95i5p09k9 · Post by **i4v02v95i5p09k9** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:07 pm

Personally, I think we should of pulled out a long time ago. Once the world started (removed by T) about our presence there, we should of said "(removed by T)!" and left them to rot. Whats this? Conquer a nation that hates you, then feed them and give them money? No thank you, sir.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:34 pm

[QUOTE=i4v02v95i5p09k9]Whats this? Conquer a nation that hates you, then feed them and give them money? No thank you, sir.[/QUOTE]
Well, if the Iraqi people loved the Americans, it would be a liberation, not a conquering, and feeding them and giving them money is a means to try and gain sympathy for the unjust war.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:32 pm

i4v02v95i5p09k9 please read the forum rules regarding swearing. Misspelling and use of asterisks to avoid the filters is not permitted

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:33 am

[QUOTE=i4v02v95i5p09k9] Whats this? Conquer a nation that hates you, then feed them and give them money? No thank you, sir.[/QUOTE]

I would rather my tax money go to Iraq who doesn't have nukes rather than to North Korea who does. Seems like some in the US government doesn't think so though.

Now as to Iraq and the new government, I saw on the news this morning a fellow from Iraq saying "Iraq knows better how to run Iraq." Something I agree with. A republic like in the US (IMHO) wouldn't work in Iraq, Iraq must have a republic for Iraq.

(I still believe until the new Iraq gets a armed force together, the US must stay. Leaving without any in place would be a bad mistake.)

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:58 am

On a followup note - I read today that Saddam Hussein has been transfered to the new Iraqi government.
It will be interesting to see what this can/will do to the situation in the country. Also how they will trial him and if he indeed will be sentenced to death. According to what I read the government had re-introduced the death-penalty with the Saddam-trial in mind.

I wonder if they are truely up to the task of trying Saddam Hussein anytime soon, but I think it is better that they try to function as an "independend" country, then via the US-run CPA.

But so far - there hasn't been much mention of turmoil in Iraq from the medias. Or at least what I've seen/read.

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:27 am

Giving Iraq control of itself is a good idea, but making sure that the people who could start a civil war are gone is also important; weasel is right, the US' armed force is still needed.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:32 am

I say the US pulls it's forces out, and allow the UN to send in peace keeping forces at this point. But then, like that'll happen...

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:40 am

That would probably be a good idea. I don't know about in America but the idea I got was that whilst the American forces enforced the streets, they did heavy handedly and controlled it. That negetive image could be dispelled if un forces came in, and would still keep iraq safe(r).

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:41 am

[QUOTE=Aegis]I say the US pulls it's forces out, and allow the UN to send in peace keeping forces at this point. But then, like that'll happen...

[/QUOTE]

Bush most likely dreams the UN would send in peace keepers, (would help his election) but in all truth, the UN will not. Right now in Africa there are hundreds of thousands dying (from the reports I have seen) and the UN won't do nothing. And IMHO the UN didn't start this in Iraq (at least the war part, the sanctions are another story), so they shouldn't be expected to solve it. IMHO they should be solving the mess in Africa though. Sadly Africa lacks oil or a monetary profit for anyone to want to get involved.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:42 am

[QUOTE=craig]That would probably be a good idea. I don't know about in America but the idea I got was that whilst the American forces enforced the streets, they did heavy handedly and controlled it. That negetive image could be dispelled if un forces came in, and would still keep iraq safe(r).[/QUOTE]
exactly, but the likeliness of that happen is slim to none, considering how adamant Bush was in the first place on 'liberating' Iraq.

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:45 am

Perhaps he thought that the cavilry would ride into town and the taliban (I don't watch news much, those are the 'bad guys' so to say) would lay the guns down. Or at least it would be quicker and cleaner. Also if it had gone that quick, what a good president he would seem.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:47 am

I know bush is trying currently to get Nato to send in its elite forces for help in the afghan elections..

I also believe that winning the election is more important to bush than anyhting right now and sending our boys home in replace of UN boys is something Bush is probably in a hurry to do. Of course no oil contracts and stuff to others...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:49 am

@Craig how long has this war lasted? Wouldn't this be considered really fast? Too fast in my opinion..

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:05 am

It has gone fast, but I was thinking he thought they would hear about America's involvement and surrender.

I don't know how long wars last though.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:08 am

[QUOTE=craig]Perhaps he thought that the cavilry would ride into town and the taliban (I don't watch news much, those are the 'bad guys' so to say) would lay the guns down. Or at least it would be quicker and cleaner. Also if it had gone that quick, what a good president he would seem.

[/QUOTE]

Not Taiban, mostly Iraqi who who didn't want Saddam or for that matter the US either. 10 years of being told the US is the reason your child doesn't have food will make you kind of hate the US. This is not to say all are Iraqi, but I would bet the majority are.

And as to Bush, with some of his advisors did believe it would be a walk in the park. Powell warned him, but seems like some only believe the stuff that agree with their outlook.

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:15 am

So he has Yes men.

Excellent.