Well the handover has happened.

BillieTheBot

They handed over 'power' to the Iraqi's a couple of days early.

Do you really think it will make a great deal of difference?

Apparently the bombers are now actually getting some groups of native Iraqi's turning against them because they are seen as foreign and they are killing Iraqis.

Can it get much worse before it gets better?

Former Member

Well it was a clever move by the Americans and I'd imagine it seeks to prevent as much carnage as possible. No doubt there were a few car bombs scheduled to go off on Wednesday...

Things will eventually get better... but not for a long time. The US still has some 140,000 occupying forces in the area and a number of bases. And if the new "sovereign" Iraqi government asked them to leave they would not do so. For as long as the foreign invader retains its military occupation of Iraq there will be trouble.

Former Member

Given that Allawi is simply the cousin of the first puppet (Chalabi) which they sought to install, this council can in no legitimate fashion be called a "sovereign" government. Tis merely another step in the long process of legitimization of our occupation.

The fact that the first act of Allawi was to delare that they wanted the US to reamin only further suggests how vital US military presence is to the maintenance of power against the actual self determination of the majority of Iraqis.

Can't let the people have the sort of government they truly want, that would bad for US business interests.

Former Member

So does this mean that technically Iraq had Internal Sovereingty....but how can that be possible with a foreign force occupying the country? It has external sovereignty though kind of, because it would be recognised by the rest of the world but again how can sovereignty exist with the presence of an occupying power.

Im just trying to get my head round it, I have my Political Ideas and Concepts exam tomorrow, I have been revising sovereignty but it still causes the mind to boggle.....I

Former Member

Well that does go right to the crux of the confusion between Powell and Blair as to wether the appointed government would be allowed to give orders to commanders of foreign troops.

Former Member

Some may ask "where are the WMDs?"

Some may ask "where's the beef?"

But surprise surprise, the most recent question on many lips is...

Where's the money you we're entrusted to administer?"

Former Member

And? Thats a usual percentage for handling the funds isnt it, same as any other banker would do.

Former Member

well all i can say is oh crap here we go again.

wasn't iraq a monarchy before saddam came in to power?

Former Member

BB, the CPA aren't bankers and the money entrusted to their administration are those very funds long touted by the administration as "belonging to the Iraqis".

After lengthy pontifications about Saddam's misappropriation of Oil for Food funds, this latest revelation further exposes the duplicities and double standards of our occupation and further erodes the integrity of our supposed "humanitarian" venture.

wasn't iraq a monarchy before saddam came in to power?

Yes, though the monarchy was overthrown in the 1950's and Saddam didnt personally rise to power until the 70's.

Former Member

Yes, I know, I wasnt being totally serious.

Its not really surprising is it though, when you have un trace-able money washing about in that kind of enviroment of course some of its going to go missing.

Its just another insult in a whole long list.

Former Member

More a case of "when we have a blatantly transparent war profiteer as VP who has used his office to secure the bulk of the contracts for his corporate cronies".

Former Member

Well, its not quite as bad as the Iran-Contra stuff, at least they're not funding mass murder and rape this time.

Former Member

Actually that too is not entirely true. Examples of long unaccounted for criminal activity on the part of the "security contractors" (read: mercenaries) - who have again recently been under the spotlight in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandals - in Bosnia (link) suggest that there is much that may not yet have been revealed about the extent of privatised military activity in Iraq.

We again have Cheney to thank for opening the floodgate to private military contractors (which are not directly accountable to Congress nor the American public) to bolster the admin's war machine.

But then, given that key figures from the very scandal you mentioned have found their way back into power (including Cheney) in this admin, it comes as no surprise that new scandals should emerge.

Former Member

Fair point, but, (clutches at a straw) well at least they arent giving arms to Iran.

Former Member

Been there done that and they got their t-shirts for their efforts

Nevertheless, Youll find it interesting just how many other unstable or brutally repressive states to which the Bush admin happily continues to authorise arms sales...

US Arms proliferation post-9/11

Further detailed examination of US and global arms sales

Former Member

Oh, no, the UK has gone even better than that. With the export garentee scheme several nasty governments have ended up getting weapons from UK suppliers and then the government here has paid.

Good examples being about £600 million worth going to Sadam, more to Indonesia, the DRC and Sudan I believe too.

Former Member

Drop in the bucket compared to US arms proliferation. We alone account for approximately 40-45% of all global arms sales.

Just one element in the tactic we've long employed to ensure we can have sufficient pretext every decade to launch another war and keep the MIC sitting pretty.

Former Member

Oh certainly, in shear numbers the US has us Brits beaten, but even the US doesnt pay for weapons for places like the DRC!

Its a beautiful scheme when you look at it, under the pretext of saving jobs here in the arms industry, an industry most Britains dont like we are the garentee for arm sales. The DRC takes the arms, kills its own people and starts wars. Then when they dont fancy paying the UK taxpayer does!

Former Member

Things will eventually get better, and the people of Iraq deserve everyone's support on it. But we musn't forget that going to war in the first place was very wrong, very illegal and has cause the deaths of many tens of thousands.

We must never let the Axis of Idiots off the hook on this one.

Former Member

Yes, like the Saudi's or the other Middle East countries?

Former Member

I suggest you read the substantial information provided by the second link I posted for you above. Export guarantees are equally a part of the US arms sales process as it is for Britain.

The cost to US taxpayers (unbeknownst to most average American citizens) is some 7 billion dollars annually ( See here )

Former Member

I had no idea, I thought only we were stupid enough to de facto give arms to people who killed and tortured their own people. Though if I'd given it a bit of thought I guess...well I'm not all that shocked.

Former Member

As ive said previously BB and as you would readily find in the links provided, this is a practice of all the principal arms exporters (US, UK, France, Russia and China) as well as some of the lesser ones (Israel, India, etc.).

The US, however, consistently tops the chart on most counts.

Former Member

Its just so bloody depressing, for the sake of a few arms industry jobs here we are inflicting such pain and misery on the 3rd World.

Former Member

Thats the power and influence of globally hegemonic big money interests sad to say. Something a truly progressive political agenda must redress once sufficient numbers of people finally wake to realise we need to break the elitest stranglehold on our democratic systems once and for all.

Former Member

We just need to dump this whole failed idea of democracy, its not working, its not going to work, the people are stupid.

Former Member

For Democracy to be viable it requires active involvement and scrutiny by the whole of its citizenry. Insofar as we have traded that active involvement and scrutiny for comfort and the "daily grind" of our immediate environments, we have failed democracy, not vice versa.

Former Member

I just dont believe that the 'people' really are ever going to be involved enough.

Pandering to the worst segment in society will always happen because they have to worry about being re-elected. You cant get anything properly done because you have to work over such a small time scale.

Former Member

Of course substantive reforms must be made to the system including who controls our respective medias. No citizenry can be expected to intellegently scrutinise its elected leaders if it is subject to a wholly corporate controlled aparatus of misinformation intended to further its own money interests at the expense of the people.

Former Member

So what do people think of the idea that we indeed may have reason to want to have a place to deploy from within Iraq in order to fight terroist groups?

By staying on good terms with the Iraq government, we have a place to deploy from, a base of operations, so to speak. As long as our presence is with the permission and agreement of the new Iraq government, is that such a bad thing?


Also, if we simply stepped out militarily, perhaps it would cause MORE problems, as opposed to fewer problems. If the entire country fell because of its current instability, militarily, then guess who the rest of the world would point their fingers at? The USA and Britain for "abondoning" Iraq.

But then, if we stay there, then everyone says we are Colonialists simply trying to throw our weight around.

Can't win for losing here.

Former Member

Originally posted by USA#1-TrQ
So what do people think of the idea that we indeed may have reason to want to have a place to deploy from within Iraq in order to fight terroist groups?

That the ideal place from which to deploy to combat Saudi Arabian terrorist groups would be... Saudi Arabia? Mind you, the presence of those troops in SA was the justification al-Qa'ida claimed for it's murderous activies in the first place, so yes, it's a bit of no win situation...