Is Iraq Now Ruling Itself? From AP

[GENIERE]

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. "

 

[Robert Zaleski]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

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.

 

[FZ+]

Iraq now governs itself

In Theory.

Hopefully, it will work out. After all, it is what those on the Left have been calling for from day one.

 

[Adam]

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.

It was a good move indeed. I just hope the nutters don't simply go ahead with attacks anyway.

 

[kyleb]

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 government at the moment, but i can't see how even the insurgents would argue the turnover is a bad thing.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

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?

 

[studentx]

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 government at the moment, but i can't see how even the insurgents would argue the turnover is a bad thing.

There are insurgents, and there are terrorists. I am pretty sure terrorists will keep attacking

 

[kyleb]

ok then, what would be the point of the terrorists attacking over this?

 

[Njorl]

ok then, what would be the point of the terrorists attacking over this?

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.

Njorl

 

[studentx]

ok then, what would be the point of the terrorists attacking over this?

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

Because it shows weakness in the provisional government from day one.

 

[kat]

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.

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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 government at the moment, but i can't see how even the insurgents would argue the turnover is a bad thing.

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.

 

[kyleb]

hum, i don't see how the insurgents not wanting Iraq to have a stable/democratic government makes you believe 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.

 

[Njorl]

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.

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

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

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?

It is progress toward our goal, not their goal.

I can see how the tenuous new government would be good for them - but "good" only insofar as it might be easy to destroy.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

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.

Now why would I think that. The television news networks, ABC, CBS, NBC are all liberal. Most newspapers in the USA run bylines from the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post; Miami Herald, liberal all. Taxpayer funded National Public Radio, liberal. Each day we get a endless stream of negativity from this bunch telling us what a miserable failure this administration is and how conditions in the military theater are worsening. This is the same crap we heard from the left media during the Viet Nam conflict. Hell, Cronkite was telling the America public that the U. S. military lost the Tet offensive.

 

[FZ+]

This is the same crap we heard from the left media during the Viet Nam conflict.

Oh yes. And the US won Vietnam, didn't they?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Can you name one battle the U. S. military lost to the North Vietnamese Army or Viet Cong? None. The greatest weapon the North Vietnamese had was the U. S. media.

 

[loseyourname]

It might be interesting to note that North Vietnam remained a communist state despite our best efforts. Contrary to the justification for waging war there in the first place, this did not result in all of Southeast Asia becoming communist.

 

[studentx]

It might be interesting to note that North Vietnam remained a communist state despite our best efforts. Contrary to the justification for waging war there in the first place, this did not result in all of Southeast Asia becoming communist.

So the vietnamese won because they remained communist, and the USA won because they stopped communism from spreading. Not that i think Vietnam was a good thing, but looking at these facts how was Vietnam a defeat for the USA, apart from being humiliated by its own citizens?

 

[FZ+]

Can you name one battle the U. S. military lost to the North Vietnamese Army or Viet Cong? None. The greatest weapon the North Vietnamese had was the U. S. media.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. The battle for the moral high ground.

 

[Adam]

Can you name one battle the U. S. military lost to the North Vietnamese Army or Viet Cong? None. The greatest weapon the North Vietnamese had was the U. S. media.

Can you name the side in that conflict which was chased out of Vietnam?

 

[Njorl]

Can you name one battle the U. S. military lost to the North Vietnamese Army or Viet Cong? None. The greatest weapon the North Vietnamese had was the U. S. media.

There is a small amount of truth to that. Very small.

For the first six years of the war, media coverage consisted of whatever the government decided to spoon-feed to the media. We were not winning then either. However, we were certainly not losing it.

For the Vietnamese to win, they needed the American people to realize that we had no interest in winning that stupid war.

For the Americans to win, we needed to kill most of the 20+ million Vietnamese.

When the media coverage became honest, it made victory for the Vietnamese possible. Even when the media were being tools for Johnson, there was no chance of American victory. We simply could not be monstrous enough to win, even in secret.

So, I suppose you could say that the behavior of the American media was an integral ingredient of our defeat in Vietnam. Considering that defeat was most likely inevitable, and that victory would have required a holocaust, the media did the nation a service by switching to real, honest reporting on the war.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

So the vietnamese won because they remained communist, and the USA won because they stopped communism from spreading. Not that i think Vietnam was a good thing, but looking at these facts how was Vietnam a defeat for the USA, apart from being humiliated by its own citizens?

This US "victory" could have been even greater if we hadn't sent one soldier to Vietnam.

For one thing, communism did spread, to Laos and Cambodia. Laos was a lost cause, but Cambodia should have been saved. It was a prosperous nation. The native communist insurgency was weak before it became ensnared in the Vietnam war. If our goal had been to save Cambodia, it would have been achievable. Thailand was never in doubt, and Burma would have been no great loss if it did go communist.

Njorl

 

[HAVOC451]

There is a small amount of truth to that. Very small.

For the first six years of the war, media coverage consisted of whatever the government decided to spoon-feed to the media. We were not winning then either. However, we were certainly not losing it.

For the Vietnamese to win, they needed the American people to realize that we had no interest in winning that stupid war.

For the Americans to win, we needed to kill most of the 20+ million Vietnamese.

When the media coverage became honest, it made victory for the Vietnamese possible. Even when the media were being tools for Johnson, there was no chance of American victory. We simply could not be monstrous enough to win, even in secret.

So, I suppose you could say that the behavior of the American media was an integral ingredient of our defeat in Vietnam. Considering that defeat was most likely inevitable, and that victory would have required a holocaust, the media did the nation a service by switching to real, honest reporting on the war.

Njorl

Well said Njorl.
The Vietnamise wanted the French out most of all. If we'd been listening we might have seen that Ho Chi Minh actually admired the USA. Had we not acted out of shear fear of communism Vietnam could very well have moved toward the center and westernised. Too bad such notions could not be heard over the din of the cold war.