Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC) NewsFlash Paul Bremmer can't stand another day, says "To hell with it, Iraq -- you're sovereign as of right now"   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

23162 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2004 at 3:06 AM (18 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1097 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
2004-06-28 5:08:42 AM  
I respect Bush on this one, kudos to him. (or whoever decided to do this) Just watching the media scramble right now is priceless, and I think it was a good move to keep the insurgents off base.

But uhh, If I was the president, I would have done the transfer on July 4th. Could have gotten good PR out of that one I think.

/rare praise for bush from this bush hater
 
2004-06-28 5:12:40 AM  
I kinda think this was just to divert attention from Michael Moore. I really do.
 
2004-06-28 5:15:25 AM  
Sorry for getting so sidetracked and going off-topic earlier.

Iraq is going to either pull through brilliantly, and hate the US; or it's going to fail horribly, and hate the US. It's like taking a kid out of his abusive home only to put it on a street corner with nothing but his PJ's to stop him from freezing to death. Either way the situation is bad but we don't have the right to choose which direction the child takes.

Now we've given control to Iraq which means next to nothing. It either means they're going to ask us to leave, we say no, and Iraqis hate us and our puppet government or they're going to ask us to leave, we say yes, and Iraqis hate us and our puppet government.

If my examples seem similar it's because Iraqis will hate us no matter what. We're dropping the kid in the water and seeing if it'll swim or if it'll die. Regardless, it'll still hate us.

/Metaphors abound!
 
2004-06-28 5:17:54 AM  
"I kinda think this was just to divert attention from Michael Moore. I really do."

Eh, it was gonna happen in two days anyway, not much of a diversion.
 
2004-06-28 5:23:49 AM  
Expecting the insurgents to go ahead with whatever they had planned.

/Michael Moore is Phat.
 
2004-06-28 5:26:41 AM  
peter_hook

primate1

If that happens, so help me god I'm holding you responsible.

If you want god to help you, make sure you vote Conservative at a minimum...preferably Christian Heritage Party...

/Stephen Harper = evil

You for the words "lesser of three" in front of "evil."

BTW, in BC, they have these ads "Stephen Harper will do to Ottawa what Gordon Campbell did to BC...paid for the by the NDP."

Is this the same NDP that ruined BC, had something like a 98% majority, and were tossed out in the biggest electoral turnaround in Canadian history? So they're saying that a fiscal conservative has to come in, make painful moves to fix all of the crap?

It almost reminds me of invading Iraq...


This probably isn't the best place to be discussing this but:
From what I've been told, the NDP in BC managed to reduced the deficit 9 out of 10 years and the last 3 years had small surpluses, all this after inheriting the 2nd biggest deficit in BC history. In 2002 the Liberals had the largest deficit in BC history. That's about all I know about BC, since I'm from the opposite side of the country, so I digress.

Quardripilegic
...Bush light...

I prefer "Bush with a higher IQ," but it's all good.
 
2004-06-28 5:28:46 AM  
In any case, bye-bye Saddam. You deserve whatever the Iraqis see fit to give you.
 
2004-06-28 5:31:07 AM  
Something is seriously wrong when your "handover" has to be done in secret.
 
2004-06-28 5:34:26 AM  
I would like a peek at the contingency plan.
 
2004-06-28 5:35:53 AM  
ON TO NORTH KOREA!!!!11one
 
2004-06-28 5:37:05 AM  
Quadriplegic
VideoVader
Well-researched, logical and reasonable.


Thanks man.

I have to disagree for a few reasons though.

*cracks knuckles*
Ready.

1. Saddam was a tin-pot dictator. I know about Kuwait, and I know how quickly and how badly his ass was whomped. If anybody over there had both the inclination and the fear not to piss off the US, it was Saddam. The man isn't insane, just nasty.

And very uncooperative. He should have had the inclination and the fear not to piss off the US, but he was crazy enough to be a punk anyway. Insane or nasty, he wasn't going to be influenced by the US into doing us any amount of good so long as he was in power. The most we could have done to deal with him was the lift the sanctions, but he would have still kept on with aiding Palestinian and Al-Qaeda terrorists all day long, using the money from all the extra oil he would have sold.

2. The whole point of the war, as I recall, was to put an end to terrorist attacks against America. This is completely unrelated to attacking Iraq. Again, better to go after the source.

Iraq WAS a source, as we are gradually finding info about his relationships with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. There's more than once source for terrorism.

Now, unless Bush and company wish to admit that they weren't actually interested in retribution for 9/11, or against stopping terrorism, then Saudi Arabia is where they should have gone. As for the crazy fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, you have to destroy that before you can create a democracy.

Why do you think invading Saudi Arabia is a bad idea? Once we take out the government, the crazies are still there. Better to keep the not-so-crazy government and coerce them to tone down the rhetoric and stop producing crazies. What sucks is that they've produced their own buffer against US invasion: they've produced so many crazies that taking them out of power would merely bring an even crazier government in their place, and the US can't tolerate that.

Let's say you're a police officer, supposed to clean up a nighbourhood. Do you first go after the crack houses or the guy illegally selling cigarettes? What happens when you take out the guy selling cigarettes and replace him with a nice, law-abiding guy who helps the police at every chance (while leaving the crack houses untouched)?

Bad analogy; the police officer in this case could just call for backup and take down the crackhouse whenever he wanted. We don't have that luxury with Saudi Arabia. The amendment to the analogy would be that while the cop could replace the cigarette vendor with a nicer guy, taking in the owners of the crack house would just allow the other neighborhood junkies to make it their own crack house, as they would be the only ones who would want to live there afterwards. Also, we can't just raze the house since the analogy would demand we be able to just raze a country with no new inhabitants. Now, if the new cigarette vendor had the ability to influence the junkies to quit acting like punks, as a free Iraq would influence Saudi and Iranian politics, you could stem the flow of junkies at its source so as to avoid the fruitless fight with the crack house. Of course, by this point, the analogy has collapsed.

3. As for Iran, wasn't the (other) point of going to Iraq the massive stockpiles of WMD?

Yes, and it's common to both Iran and Saddam's Iraq, but Iran poses a greater risk for civilian casualties via nuclear or at least dirty-bomb counter-attack.

As for Iran being larger, there aren't even enough troops in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan. That's a non-issue.

My point was almost exactly that. While I think we have enough troops for Iraq, we are utilizing a lot of reservists, and we would need even more for Iran. It's not an issue of raising new problems, but of exacerbating a relatively minor one into a huge one.

The student movement is great - what etter way to set up a democracy than do it in an area that is already crying for it? Iran would have been a great target.

Iraqis also wanted freedom, but they couldn't cry out as loudly for it because Saddam was even more ruthless than the Iranian mullahs. Also, while the student movement would greatly help an Iranian reconstruction, are they in the majority, or more akin to the Kurds of Iraq: helpful and friendly, but not a cure-all?

"In conclusion, it's a lot easier to topple Saddam and then use that position to influence Iran and Saudi Arabia than any other permutation of actions."
I don't think so. I think Iraq is quickly going to become Israel II. Pushed to the edge by crazies pouring in from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. etc. they're going to start implementing some brutal security which will only increase hatred against them.


Since the US and NATO are going to be largely responsible for security while the crazies try to stop a sovereign Iraq from surviving, I wouldn't worry about brutal security to the extent you are. Actually, I'm hoping it'll become more akin to Turkey II, i.e. a much less psychotic country than most in the region that most of the others don't bother too much since they are Muslim, but with better human rights laws.

Again, I have to say that if you are interested in destroying an ideology, you have to fight against the places where that ideology is most strong.

But you also have to consider the consequences of such actions. If we had bombed Saudi Arabia, much of the Arab world would have seen us as bombing Mecca. On the other hand, most people who didn't already hate us with vitriol didn't like Saddam anyway.

I respect the depth and clarity of your views, as well as your ability to argue politics without devolving into silliness.

And thanks for returning in kind, though if you want, I can revert to silliness at any time.

[image from radio.weblogs.com too old to be available]

Although I'm afraid I do not have your optimism when it comes to either America's "allies" or the simplicity of stopping religious insanity.

I'm able to hold onto my optimism because it's served me quite well in the past.

When we couldn't find Saddam immediately after the war, I had faith that we would.
I had an especially merry Christmas last year.

When we realized Zarqawi was planning to ignite a civil war between Sunnis and shiites, I hoped the Iraqis would realize who their real aggressor was.
Thanks to that intercepted letter, they all know now.

When al-Sadr tried to run his blitzkreig, I knew that the coalition would kick his ass.
He has recently told his fighters to return home.

Now terrorists are taking one last stab at taking Iraq for themselves through needless death and destruction.
I have confidence that those working for a free Iraq, for all their past and future mistakes, will eventually lead the country to a good, stable future.

BTW, I don't pretend for a moment that taking out terrorist-aiding governments will itself stop religious insanity. However, it will stop the flow of aid to such insane groups who use sovereign nations as shields for their terrorist activities, just as the mafia of the 50's used "legitimate businesses" as fronts for their crimes. We can't stop people from engaging in terrorism on a smaller scale, just as we can't stop criminals from organizing, but we can stop the multi-nation machine used to power the larger groups, just as we could take down crime families. And like the mafia, we can't kill terrorism quite yet, but we can break its back.
 
2004-06-28 5:37:18 AM  
I figured it out! I'm waiting for the hilarity to ensue, and anticipating it too much for my own good.
 
2004-06-28 5:37:38 AM  
"Next stop: Vietnam! Surprise the fark out of those guys."

"You make a movie?"

"Not this time pal."
 
2004-06-28 5:41:02 AM  
Quadriplegic

atrocious social stances

Huh? I disagree with many of Harper's social stances but it's ridiculous what this country's politics has come to, that holding any even slightly non-liberal social beliefs is un-Canadian, atrocious, essentially beneath discussion. That's bad for our democracy, no matter what your social stance is.

and most likely privatization (two-tier health, anybody?)

So we won't have to go to the U.S. or get wait-listed for months anymore? Yay!

Even if you don't agree with two-tier or wholly privatized health care (which of course you're welcome to), I hope you'll agree that it's not unreasonable for a government-run health system to source some private suppliers (i.e. supplying the gov't, for the gov't-run health centres)?

The negative effects of a closed system where it's basically not acceptable to propose certain things, as I discussed above, are costing us huge amounts in wasted tax because politicians can't even propose more efficient, still-non-privatized solutions for health care, such as using private suppliers.

and bad tax cuts.

Again, huh?! I dunno about you, but I like not paying as much tax. Now's as good a time as any to cut back Canadian citizens' tax burden.


What we need in Canada is a minority government (I'd prefer Libs) so this country can take some time to cool down and plan for the future.

Fair enough, though I'd take the Conservatives. I personally wouldn't be averse to a Conservative majority this election, after a decade of Liberal expansion, waste and corruption (let alone our other serious problems from the last decade like farked-over relations with the U.S.), though I feel no long-term or ideological need for Conservative power, and I would definitely be satisfied with any kind of minority government (except NDP/Bloc!).

As I said above, I disagree with most Conservative social policy, but I'd like it to provide at least occasional counter-balance to the Libs' social policy, and I think there are far more immediate and important issues facing us this election than any social policy: Canada-U.S. relations, our disintegrating military, our irrevelance to world affairs (in large part caused by the previous two), our immorality when we do get involved on the world stage (siding with France, Russia, Saddam, etc., over the U.S. and Iraqis, for example, or our politicians' complicity with or turning a blind eye to most of the world's dictators and terrorists), etc. Also, of course, kicking the bastards out once in a while.

/Enjoying some short-lived Canadian politics talk before it's back to nothingness.
//Why the hell isn't everyone upbeat about this transfer of power?!
 
2004-06-28 5:43:34 AM  
Quadriplegic

Sorry, I forgot to add that I'm gonna go to sleep now. If you respond, I ain't gonna get back to you until about 10 hours from now at least. Nice debatin' wicha!

/Vader out.
 
2004-06-28 5:44:03 AM  
VideoVader - Although I'd like to believe that argument about taking down Iran without resorting to any kind of military action, I think our work on her two neighbors has actually strengthened it's position in the region. I mean - Iran wasn't exactly cozy with it's neighbors before we stepped in, couldn't the lack of a military dictatorship in two of it's former rivals be more of a blessing than a curse?

I do hope that some group of people within the country start rooting for a more democratic ruling party, but I think we've gotten more Iranians (and Saudis, and Muslims, etc etc) to believe more in the "America is the great satan" idea than the "You too can have Democracy" idea.

I think that UNLESS the Iranians start rooting for reforming their own country, which I don't see, that Iran's position is better-than-ever.

Of course, what the hell do I know.
 
2004-06-28 5:44:14 AM  
Not only is the headline biased, but it's grammatically incorrect.

another > an other

...not to mention poor punctuation.
 
2004-06-28 5:45:30 AM  
an other
 
2004-06-28 5:46:21 AM  
PaulMKelly

Yea, that's what I said.
 
2004-06-28 5:47:26 AM  
Iraq was a sovriegn country BEFORE we invaded it.
 
2004-06-28 5:48:25 AM  
TheSnacky

So was the 3rd Reich.
 
2004-06-28 5:49:51 AM  
And what a country it was. You can't really make that country any worse, but you can trade old problems for new ones.
 
2004-06-28 5:50:11 AM  
[image from hmh-463-vietnam.com too old to be available]
What's that? Halliburton made enough dough off the war through government contracts?? Get ready to dump the choppers off the flight deck boys, we're getting the fark out of this shiathole!
 
2004-06-28 5:53:26 AM  
The third reich was a sovereign country????
 
2004-06-28 5:54:37 AM  
What's that sk0undrel, you are uneducated and uninformed? You didn't know that Halliburton is the only company in the world capable of doing what it does in Iraq?
 
2004-06-28 5:55:05 AM  
sk0undrel
Halliburton and other contractors are not leaving anytime soon.
 
2004-06-28 5:56:33 AM  
Cop Thrilla

Dictionary.com:

sovereign n.

-One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
-A national governing council or committee.
-A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
 
2004-06-28 5:57:46 AM  
Cop Thrilla

sovereignty (n. pl. sovereignties

-Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
-Royal rank, authority, or power.
-Complete independence and self-government.
-A territory existing as an independent state.
 
2004-06-28 6:00:29 AM  
aallppiinnee

TheSnacky

So was the 3rd Reich.


this is relevant how?
 
2004-06-28 6:01:50 AM  
2004-06-28 05:47:26 AM TheSnacky


Iraq was a sovriegn country BEFORE we invaded it.

(that's how it's relevant)
 
2004-06-28 6:03:10 AM  
Why do I get the impression that our Marines aren't coming home anytime soon?

I've got a bad feeling about this....
 
2004-06-28 6:04:52 AM  
This sentence sums up why I don't understand you conservatives.

"How, they wonder, did so many conservatives, who normally don't trust their government to run a public school down the street, come to believe that federal bureaucrats could transform an entire nation in the alien culture of the Middle East?
 
2004-06-28 6:05:11 AM  
Bonzo_1116

I'd have a bad feeling about this if they were home not doing anything. I'm sure they would too.
 
2004-06-28 6:06:13 AM  
Oh yeah---and if the Iraqis DON'T have a raging civil war inside of 2 years, it'll only be because we've still got shiatloads of troops over there.


What a clusterfark.
 
2004-06-28 6:06:59 AM  
Universal Acid

(because liberals run the schools)
 
2004-06-28 6:08:44 AM  
Now all our unequal treaties and carpetbagger contracts with Iraq are perfectly legal!

/goes back to bed
//was it all a dream

\*

No we'll need more troops...
 
2004-06-28 6:09:07 AM  
aallppiinnee--I see your profile says Alexandria--Is that the one in Virginia, or the real thing in Egypt?

I'd love to know what folks in the Middle east are thinking about this. I'll bet people are putting on their tin-foil keffiyahs about now.
 
2004-06-28 6:10:01 AM  
Bonzo_1116

Civil war is fine. It will give the bored and hedonistic Iraqi arabs something else to shoot at so they can later dance around in the steet with AKs a'blazin looking like sheep in front of television cameras.
 
2004-06-28 6:10:50 AM  
Bonzo_1116

Haha, yea Alexandria, VA. Good 'ol AXA.
 
2004-06-28 6:14:17 AM  
CaptainFatass

Ok, so the lefty stance is to pull out and be optimistic about that?
 
2004-06-28 6:15:36 AM  
aallppiinnee

Civil war is most definitely NOT fine, if you like stability in the world energy market. It doesn't matter who own the fields in Iraq, as long as their output is predictable. The more fluctuation in the market, the more power we hand to the Saudis, be cause they've got their greasy fingers on the biggest spigot.

I wouldn't want to give the Saudis the satisfaction.
 
2004-06-28 6:16:30 AM  
I'd love to know what folks in the Middle east are thinking about this.


Here's a decent Iraqi blog. It seems that the common Iraqi lacks a decent power-supply, trust in its new government and security. They do now have terrorist attacks on a daily basis, so at least we gave them something.
 
2004-06-28 6:16:37 AM  
Bonzo_1116

No, I agree. Just messing around, being inflammatory, you know.
 
2004-06-28 6:18:00 AM  
VideoVader

It all seems sound, except I maintain that Iraq will be ineffectual against long-standing religious madness, and that seems to be the crux of your argument. Frankly, rather than spreading Deomcracy and freedom into the surrounding territory, I think madness and hatred (as we have already seen) will flow into it. At best, Iraq is a temporary solution.

As for Saudi Arabia, something has to be done there, and soon. If we can all agree that they are a major problem both on the political scene and in funding terrorism, then we'd be fools to hope that the country would just "work itself out". Fanatacism isn't something that we have the leisure of wearing down over decades. While I agree that removing Saddam was good, I think it was at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Seeing America crush the militants and madmen in Saudi Arabia would have made Iraq very pliable, very quickly.

As for the perception of bombing Mecca, I think the perception that America would not stand for extremism and the funding of terrorists would be much stronger. Frankly, the current perception of America as a blind and vicious beast (after Iraq and Abu Ghraib) is far more damaging. It looks like America didn't stop to pursue its attackers, it just lashed out at any brown man it could find. That perception will do a lot more to unify the Muslim world than going after Saudi Arabia.

The US and NATO won't be in Iraq forever (I hope not). When the time comes, it will be fertile soil for radicals of every stripe. Ultimately, I think America has defeated the common cold at the cost of allowing cancer to run rampant. (I need better analogies, it's really too late for this.)

What we really need is a little more rationality in this world, thanks for doing your part. Goodnight.
 
2004-06-28 6:18:18 AM  
binnster

Maybe if we offered to put Saddam back in power they wouldn't mind lighting a candle for the time being.
 
2004-06-28 6:21:14 AM  
I'm a lefty!

Even though I don't think we should have started this up in Iraq just now, I think we should stay there until it's not a steaming pile of dog shiat anymore. This could take decades, though.

The Korean war was over in the 1950's, and we're still there.

Does anyone here know if Iraqi food is tasty? Because that's my favorite aftermath of war and invasion. If it wasn't for the Vietnam war, I couldn't get a nice bowl of pho for lunch.
 
2004-06-28 6:21:47 AM  
aallppiinnee

I doubt it. Perhaps they would've been more grateful if we'd just done the job properly the first time round.
 
2004-06-28 6:22:03 AM  
Relax. Everything is going to be fine.

[image from bloggerheads.com too old to be available]
 
2004-06-28 6:24:28 AM  
If you mean back during the 1st Gulf War then I agree. Of course that wasn't the administration's fault. There was an international outcry for the US to stop pwning the Iraqi army once it was routed from Kuwait.
 
2004-06-28 6:25:37 AM  
...and that Mr Zebari visibly startled Mr Blair by publicly revealing the plan

Come on folks, that is dying for a photoshop
 
Displayed 50 of 1097 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.