Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Iraq now governs itself

  1. Jun 28, 2004 #1
    From AP

    "The U.S.-led coalition transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government Monday, speeding up the move by two days in an apparent bid to surprise insurgents who may have tried to sabotage the step toward self rule. "
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 28, 2004 #2
    Oh heck, this will throw the Left-wing media into a tizzy. Everything was timed for their 'Doom and Gloom' show to be broadcast on the thirtieth. I guess the scheduled appearance of the Grim Reapers is kaput.
  4. Jun 28, 2004 #3
    This is the most brilliant move ever!
    I am sitting here smiling as I think about the dumbfounded expression that must have been on the faces of those planning symbolic attacks on the 30th.
  5. Jun 28, 2004 #4
    Isn't it kind of sad that they had to do it in secret?

    Anywho, nothing has changed. The US will still control the puppet government in Iraq. And US troops will still die.
  6. Jun 28, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    In Theory.

    Hopefully, it will work out. After all, it is what those on the Left have been calling for from day one.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2004
  7. Jun 28, 2004 #6
    It was a good move indeed. I just hope the nutters don't simply go ahead with attacks anyway.
  8. Jun 28, 2004 #7
    i'm sorry if i am missing something obvious, but what would be the point of attacking over this? i mean it is somewhat of a puppet goverment at the moment, but i can't see how even the insurgents would argue the turnover is a bad thing.
  9. Jun 29, 2004 #8
    I think that it was a good move, as well. Mr. Zaleski, you seem to have fallen for the right-wing propoganda that liberals are all negative. We are negative towards things that deserve it, and we are positive where it is appropriate. I don't understand how the fear-mongers of the republican party can claim to be the positive ones...always talking about how death is right around the corner, trying to scare the populace into submission.
  10. Jun 29, 2004 #9
    So what's going to be the big change, eh? I posted a poll about this it was something like 90 days ago... going to be a big change? Move Bremer off of the chessboard and you know what? Same old crap- murdered hostages, bombed cop shops, thriving terrorists. Why not try to stop terrorists for a change?
  11. Jun 29, 2004 #10
    There are insurgents, and there are terrorists. Im pretty sure terrorists will keep attacking
  12. Jun 29, 2004 #11
    ok then, what would be the point of the terrorists attacking over this?
  13. Jun 29, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There are many groups seeking power in Iraq - not necessarily complete power, but power none the less. There are different paths to power. Those groups that do not see a path to power through democracy (an unlikely situation in any event), or through a power sharing compromise, do not want a stable Iraqi government to be formed.

    I think the only group that will really be shut out are the Sunni fundamentalists. Everyone else, pro-Iranian radical Shiites, anti-Iranian radical Shiites, moderate shiites, moderate Sunnis, all factions of Kurds and even ex-Baathists will have some influence over the next Iraq. They've all been fighting over who would have how much influence. The radical Sunnis though, in my opinion, would suffer from stability. Anti-Americanism is their biggest recruiting point. They are the smallest in number, and the most militant. Continued instability is necessary for them to grow in size to be a player for when the Americans leave. Also, the radical Sunnis can not really be hurt by the Americans. Superior firepower means nothing. They can only be defeated by the Iraqi community, and right now, the community hates Americans more than it hates them. The more the Americans back off, the more the community will be willing to turn on them. They need to provoke backlash from the Americans before it is too late.

  14. Jun 29, 2004 #13
    If this government is succesful, this whole war could go down the history books as good and the more Iraqi ppl enjoy freedom, the more will think it was worth it.
    If the bloody attacks continue and the government fails, the war will go down the books as a fiasco, the image of America will be even more damaged and this means ofcourse, many many more willing to fight America.
  15. Jun 29, 2004 #14
    i think i understand both your points, Njorl and studentx, but i still don't see why the date of handover would be considered a significant time to attack.
  16. Jun 29, 2004 #15
    Because it shows weakness in the provisional government from day one.
  17. Jun 29, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    I think the term was "upstage", the feeling was that there would be an attempt to create enough havoc to upstage the return of soveriegnty and thus diminish it's impact.
  18. Jun 30, 2004 #17
    i still don't rightly follow. the impact of the return of soveriegnty is still rather far off for anyone to be worried about upstaging anything; and the provisional government is obviously weak to terroist attacks at the moment, that is why we still have all our troops over there.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2004
  19. Jun 30, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The turnover is a bad thing because the insurgents don't want Iraq to have a stable/democratic government. How do I know this? They say so in their statements regarding their terrorist attacks and with their actions by attacking not only US troops but their own people and infrastructure. The insurgents are killing more Iraqis these days than they are Americans.
  20. Jun 30, 2004 #19
    hum, i don't see how the insurgents not wanting Iraq to have a stable/democratic government makes you belive that the turnover is a bad thing?

    just kidding :tongue2:

    i know you meant to say that they see it as a bad thing, not that you do. ;)

    seriously, i understand that they don't want the government we are setting up, but how could any of them possibly see America giving up control in the turnover as a worse than the prior situation?

    as for more Iraqis getting killed than Americans, you should probably take into account that the Iraqis are not as well trained or well equipped to deal with such things.
  21. Jun 30, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Also, press coverage would have been more intense. If the cameras are already there, the terrorism is that much more effective.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook