Support NeoGAF

[Mandark]

I found this thread after it had dropped off the first page. Certain people made the assertion that the US would remain in control, which certain other people questioned. Facts were scarce. I wrote this thread because nobody else would, and because I was awake.

1) The Iraqi government will not be able to impose martial law in Iraq. The US can.

2) The CPA has signed a contract with Anham Joint Venture to be Iraq's only source of arms for its military over the next two years. See link above.

3) US troops are immune from prosecution by the Iraqi government.

4) The Iraqi military will still be under US command. Ditto intelligence services. When asked by John Warner if "military decisions continue to reside indefinitely in the control of the American commander," General Richard Myers, the Charmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "Yes."

5) American rebuilding aid will be doled out and controlled by the Americans. (Same link as #4). The reconstruction aid approved for this year was $18.5 billion, and Juan Cole estimates the government's annual income at $20 billion, though I don't know what his source is for that.

6) The Iraqi government will run the police force "but in coordination with Centcom [the U.S. Central Command], because this is not a normal police situation." This according to Paul Wolfowitz.

7) Before getting the hell out of Dodge, Paul Bremer made a series of edicts that will stay in effect after the transition, as well as appointing Iraqis to high-level administrative positions. The decrees cover election, traffic, copyright, tax, business, and labor law among other things. (If you only click one link, let this be it)

Basically, the government that is in place now is just a placeholder assigned with carrying on the day-to-day administrative duties of the various ministries until elections in January. I'm not sure to what extent it can legislate, if it is allowed to legislate at all.

The US forces will still be there, as the most numerous and best armed security organization in Iraq. Mercenaries and contractors hired by the US will still be there. The people in charge of the interim government are from the same cliques that supplied members of the hand-picked IGC. Very little has changed in the actual balance of power in Iraq.

 

[deadhorse32]

you make too much sense and you have proofs.

ARGH ..... CAN'T ...... SPIN ......

 

[Triumph]

Ohhhhhhhhh Ripclawe?

Thanks Mandark. You're more on top of stuff than I.

 

[Che]

Hehe, why did anyone think that USA would invest so much on this war to give freedom (freedom from the US occupation forces not from Saddam this time) to the Iraqis after it? Oil was the only true target of the Americans and they're not risking it again (they did when they put Saddam on power).

Btw Mandark thanks for the arguments so some ignorant people can shut up.

 

[myzhi]

I'll take the bait.

1) Not going to register to read an article. Thus, I won't really be able to answer this one, but i'll take a guess. Of course Iraq can't impose martial law by themself. Currently, only the US has the man power to enforce such actions over there.

2) This does not mean Iraq is not soveign. Could be base on: 1) US makes some of the finest Military equipement in the world. 2) They are getting a huge discount by buying US. 3) US is indirectly paying for the arms. And/or, etc.

3) In most case, when the US military is sent overseas, the US always demand immunition. This is not usual.


4) Anything that has to do with security would obviously falls under US control, because guess what, the US currently has the largest security force. As the Iraq security forces increase, things will undoubtly change. I see nothing unusual here.

5) American funds to be handle by Americans. Ooh my goodness, that's insane. I mean any sane person would write a blank check instead.

6) See #4.

7) I notice you miss the most important part in the article: "...which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq's interim government..." Thus, the interim gov't can FU Bremer at anytime.

 

[Che]

I'll take the bait.

1) Not going to register to read an article. Thus, I won't really be able to answer this one, but i'll take a guess. Of course Iraq can't impose martial law by themself. Currently, only the US has the man power to enforce such actions over there.

2) This does not mean Iraq is not soveign. Could be base on: 1) US makes some of the finest Military equipement in the world. 2) They are getting a huge discount by buying US. 3) US is indirectly paying for the arms. And, etc.

3) In most case, when the US military is sent overseas, the US always demand immunition. This is not usual.


4) Anything that has to do with security would obviously falls under US control, because guess what, the US currently has the largest security force. As the Iraq security forces increase, things will undoubtly change. I see nothing unusual here.

5) American funds to be handle by Americans. Ooh my goodness, that's insane. I mean what's wrong with writing a blank check.

6) See #5.

7) I notice you miss the most important part in the article: "...which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq's interim government..." Thus, the interim gov't can overturn them at anytime.

Actually your whole answer consists of :"oh whatever, who cares, it's ok, I can accept it why can't you?". Plus I noticed that you treat Iraq in your arguments like USA's property. Well it's not, or -actually- it shouldn't be.

 

[myzhi]

Actually your whole answer consists of :"oh whatever, who cares, it's ok". Plus I noticed that you treat Iraq in your arguments like USA's property. Well it's not, or -actually- it shouldn't be.

All I have to say is "huh?"

 

[Che]

All I have to say is "huh?"

What I mean to say is : Your arguments suck and are TOTALLY biased. I was just trying to be polite and not say that.

 

[myzhi]

What I mean to say is : Your arguments suck and are TOTALLY biased.

Lol. Thanx for clearing it up more. How about at least make an attempt to dispute the argruement one by one or is that too much to ask? Given your prevoius responses, I think we already know.

 

[MrPing1000]

this is going to be fun *buys a front row seat*

 

[myzhi]

this is going to be fun *buys a front row seat*

Trust me, it's better on stage. Where the action is.

 

[Che]

Lol. Thanx for clearing it up more. How about at least make an attempt to dispute the argruement one by one or is that too much to ask? Given your prevoius responses, I think we already know.

I don't want to be aggressive but what to dispute man? That you accept that the US control the Iraqi military when Iraq is "supposed" to be an independent state? That you accept that Americans will become something like higher citizens in Iraq immune to any charges. Or that you like the fact that USA has illegally made contracts in Iraq and the Iraqi gov is so enslaved to the US that they're gonna accept them?

 

[myzhi]

I don't want to be aggressive but what to dispute man? That you accept that the US control the Iraqi military when Iraq is "supposed" to be an independent state? That you accept that Americans will become something like higher citizens in Iraq immune to any charges. Or that you like the fact that USA has illegally made contracts in Iraq and the Iraqi gov is so enslaved to the US that they're gonna accept them?

Now, that's better. At least you are attempting.

1) Regarding Iraq military, answer these questions. Is it a security force? Are they ready to take over security for the country? Who is currently in charge of the security? I am sure that if you can answer these questions, you come to the correct conclusion. Unless, you believe that 2 separate, but equal security forces is good thing.

2) Regarding immunity, lets look outside of Iraq and you will see that US military has immunity in many places all over world, ie South Korea. That's pretty much a US requirement for deployment. Without it, US personal would all be coming home. Given the state in Iraq, that would not be a smart thing to do. Also, it's not just the US military in Iraq. It's everyone in the coalition.

3) Illegal contracts? Got proof? I'll give you Israel as an example. They buy military equipement from US, and also, gets huge discounts. Also, through US aid, the US is indirectly buying their own weapons for Israel. I don't doubt the samething is happening in Iraq. Now, tell where can Iraq get the same price advantage somewhere else.

 

[Che]

Now, that's better. At least you are attempting.

1) Regarding Iraq military, answer these questions. Is it a security force? Are they ready to take over security for the country? Who is currently in charge of the security? I am sure that if you can answer these questions, you come to the correct conclusion.

2) Regarding immunity, lets look outside of Iraq and you will see that US military has immunity in many places all over world. That's pretty much a US requirement for deployment. Also, it's not just the US military in Iraq. It's everyone in the coalition.

3) Illegal contracts? Got proof? I'll give you Israel as an example. They buy military equipement from US, and get huge discounts. Also, through US aid, the US is indirectly buying their own weapons for Israel. Now, tell where Iraq can get the same price advantage somewhere else.

I know how this ends. I'll try to explain you again and again that US has no right to interfere with other countries business and has no right to interfere in Iraq cos they don't own it, then I'll get pissed off with your unwillingness to accept the truth and leave. So I'll dispatch it. Bye.

 

[myzhi]

I know how this ends. I'll try to explain you again and again that US has no right to interfere with other countries business, and has no right to interfere in Iraq cos they don't own it, then I'll get pissed off with your unwillingness to accept the truth and leave. So I'll dispatch it. Bye.

Back to, since I can't agrue the finer points, I'll just make general statements. Typical. Not that it suprise me any way. Well, enjoy the rest of you day.

 

[GG-Duo]

I like how he started his reply with "Not going to read the article, but I'll take a guess".



Edit: BTW, sorry Mandark, couldn't resist. I'll come back later and give a more on-topic reply.

 

[myzhi]

I like how he started his reply with "Not going to read the article, but I'll take a guess".

If you are going to quote me, at least fully quote me. Otherwise, selective quoting can give people the wrong impression. It's not hard. Just use the "Quote" button. Thx.


There's a major difference between:

"Not going to read the article, but I'll take a guess"

And, this:

"Not going to register to read an article. Thus, I won't really be able to answer this one, but i'll take a guess."


The 1st one makes it seem like I don't an "F" about the article, but yet, I'll make a judgement any way.

In the 2nd, I give reasons to why I can't read the article, and even though I provide a guess, it could be wrong.

Unfortunately, people on this forum likes to do select quotes.

 

[Teknopathetic]

myzhi: Unfortunately, it doesn't matter the context.

 

[The Faceless Master]

that comic strip was better than the cereal in that last penny arcade

 

[Ripclawe]

I found this thread after it had dropped off the first page. Certain people made the assertion that the US would remain in control, which certain other people questioned. Facts were scarce. I wrote this thread because nobody else would, and because I was awake.

Sure I will bite.

1) The Iraqi government will not be able to impose martial law in Iraq. The US can.

No, Iraqi government can impose martial law but there is tremendous opposition to it.

http://www.iraqpress.org/arabic.asp?fname=ipenglish\2004-06-21\1.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/527062.html

2) The CPA has signed a contract with Anham Joint Venture to be Iraq's only source of arms for its military over the next two years. See link above.

right and wrong http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4182537,00.html

The contract was awarded to the Vienna, Va.-based ANHAM joint venture but will involve several countries and companies, including those from Ukraine, Britain, Canada, Romania and China. Ukraine's portion amounts about 65 percent of the order and is worth about $78 million, the report said.

Whats wrong with having only a few suppliers for weapons? Its not a new thing that America has forced on the new Iraqi government and it keeps cost down.

3) US troops are immune from prosecution by the Iraqi government.

We also have 89 treaties with other countries saying they same thing. I don't think they have sovereignty issues with us. Again, nothing new and a smart deal.

4) The Iraqi military will still be under US command. Ditto intelligence services. When asked by John Warner if "military decisions continue to reside indefinitely in the control of the American commander," General Richard Myers, the Charmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "Yes."

well yeah, US military decisions will remain with us and police actions in special cases may be coordinated with US military command, flip side to that is the interim government now have 100,000 kurdish militia to pick from along with the forces already in place. Unless you think the Iraqi troops right now are ready to take on the terror groups by themselves.

http://www.iraqpress.org/arabic.asp?fname=ipenglish\2004-06-27\2.htm

5) American rebuilding aid will be doled out and controlled by the Americans. (Same link as #4). The reconstruction aid approved for this year was $18.5 billion, and Juan Cole estimates the government's annual income at $20 billion, though I don't know what his source is for that.

Juan Cole... anyways, Whats the problem with American rebuilding Aid being doled out and controlled by Americans? There is a difference between that and the money generated from Oil revenues which is under Iraqi control.

6) The Iraqi government will run the police force "but in coordination with Centcom [the U.S. Central Command], because this is not a normal police situation." This according to Paul Wolfowitz.

Unless you are implying the iraq police forces right now can handle the terror groups on their own, this makes sense, for other duties they have been on their own doing okay.

7) Before getting the hell out of Dodge, Paul Bremer made a series of edicts that will stay in effect after the transition, as well as appointing Iraqis to high-level administrative positions. The decrees cover election, traffic, copyright, tax, business, and labor law among other things. (If you only click one link, let this be it)

ugh, a Pincus story. but again, what is the problem? Bremer made these decisions to move Iraq into a more american style form of government, you also realize that the interim government can overturn or simply ignore them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8665-2004Jun26?language=printer

It appears unlikely that all of the orders will be followed. Many of them reflect an idealistic but perhaps futile attempt to impose Western legal, economic and social concepts on a tradition-bound nation that is reveling in anything-goes freedom after 35 years of dictatorial rule.

The orders include rules that cap tax rates at 15 percent, prohibit piracy of intellectual property, ban children younger than 15 from working, and a new traffic code that stipulates the use of a car horn in "emergency conditions only" and requires a driver to "hold the steering wheel with both hands."

Iraq has long been a place where few people pay taxes, where most movies and music are counterfeit, where children often hold down jobs and where traffic laws are rarely obeyed, Iraqis note.

Actually, you read the article and most of these edicts is just plain common sense and in some cases is a step down from what the Iraqis want such as bringing back the death penalty. Most of these will be modified or just gutted in the months to come. Again, these are the same tactics used in Germany and Japan.


The complaints about this is somewhat jumping the gun on Iraq being a puppet nation, its like a baby who just learned how to walk and you want to give him keys to the car to drive you to work. So the asshatness of the boondock comic given the guy's political leanings is somewhat correct. Unless you think pulling out and saying go for it on your own is a better way of doing things. If thats the case, Kosovo is long overdue to be cut from the safety net, along with Liberia, Ivory Coast, East Timor...etc..etc.

 

[Drinky Crow]

So you -are- arguing that Iraq *isn't* a sovereign nation, Ripclawe?

 

[Triumph]

Anyone who doesn't think America has it's hand shoved up the ass of that puppet "Iraqi" government is divorced from reality. Semantics aside, they aren't going to do anything we don't want them to. So they're not sovereign.

 

[MetatronM]

ugh, a Pincus story. but again, what is the problem? Bremer made these decisions to move Iraq into a more american style form of government, you also realize that the interim government can overturn or simply ignore them.

I do see a problem with dictating to others that their government must be more American in style. In fact, I see a serious problem in that. HOWEVER, as a few have pointed out already, that's not exactly the case here as the Iraqi council basically has veto power over those edicts, so it's not like they're set in stone or anything.

 

[AirBrian]

Iraq is a "sovereign" nation like Moore's films are "documentaries."

 

[darscot]

Props to Mandark and his comuunication skills and easily readable and well laid out points. Bascially for doing things the right way and not like my lazy ass does them.

 

[M3Freak]

www.dictionary.com

sov·er·eign Audio pronunciation of "sovereign" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n, svrn)
n.
1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other
governmental unit, as:
1. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or
monarch.
2. A national governing council or committee.

adj.
1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.


There are other meanings, but when referring to a sovereign country, this is what people mean. Therefore, according to this accepted definition:

1. Canada is sovereign
2. China is sovereign
3. Germany is sovereign
4. USA is sovereign
5. Iraq is NOT sovereign

End of case. All other arguements null and void. Fighting continues. Iraqi "government" given go ahead to brutalize population. Everyone fights. Chaos continues.

 

[Alcibiades]

Is Afganistan sovereign?

how about someone who is completely dependent on our protection and takes cues from us militarily but functions on their own (like the government in the southern region of the Korean peninsula)?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

2) Regarding immunity, lets look outside of Iraq and you will see that US military has immunity in many places all over world, ie South Korea. That's pretty much a US requirement for deployment. Without it, US personal would all be coming home. Given the state in Iraq, that would not be a smart thing to do. Also, it's not just the US military in Iraq. It's everyone in the coalition.

That's not all the way true the US has often times allowed military personnel to face legal action in Japan and Korea. They do have the option for immunity but, depending on the situation may or may not take it. However in the case of Mercenaries they are actaully lawless entities that are not subject to US or Iraqi laws.



The reality of the situation is that this "soverignty" is a sham made for election year theatrics when the GOP convention comes along. Where Bush can +1 his accomplishments on paper. The reality is that as long as the US is the active provider of security then the US is the true govenment there.

 

[fortified_concept]

Is Afganistan sovereign?

how about someone who is completely dependent on our protection and takes cues from us militarily but functions on their own (like the government in the southern region of the Korean peninsula)?

So you take "under your protection" every nation you invade and occupy? Well I surely don't want USA protection for my country. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[kablooey]

So...what exactly has changed here? Will the US be moving out of Saddam's palaces now, or not?

 

[Matlock]

It's a halfassed sovereignty. Half of it is, half of it isn't.

 

[Firest0rm]

I know how this ends. I'll try to explain you again and again that US has no right to interfere with other countries business and has no right to interfere in Iraq cos they don't own it, then I'll get pissed off with your unwillingness to accept the truth and leave. So I'll dispatch it. Bye.

They do now, because they have been requested to by the new iraqi government.

 

[Stele]

Is Afganistan sovereign?

how about someone who is completely dependent on our protection and takes cues from us militarily but functions on their own (like the government in the southern region of the Korean peninsula)?

Afghanistan has succumbed to factional warlordism, has the unity and cohesion of Reformation Germany, and in many dimensions (such as security), worse off than Iraq. So no. Korea is sovereign, because it has the power to say no:

Asia Times:
"Meantime, there's a new US plan afoot - or maybe just a trial balloon - US-South Korean military cooperation in the region - humanitarian and peacekeeping, meaning quelling trouble. Seoul gave Washington an emphatic "no" last week when a general floated his vision of the alliance. The US backed off, but South Korea was apoplectic and called the very notion "burdensome". The alliance isn't so cozy any more; both sides have different objectives and South Korea wants to be treated as an equal. It's time for both to acknowledge their irreconcilable differences and move toward an amicable divorce before resentment and mistrust make the inevitable split more difficult, and potentially more dangerous than it need be."

---

They do now, because they have been requested to by the new iraqi government.

lol I guess the Daily Show tagging the CPA now as "invited guests" and the soldiers as "armed tourists" is accurate.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

While I agree that Iraq is not a sovereign nation now, I think it would be unrealistic to expect complete and total soveriegnty only 15 months after the removal of a nearly 30 year Baathist dictatorship, especially given the circumstances of how that happened. Whether you agree or not with the war in Iraq, it happened, and we must deal with the consequences. The U.S. cannot just get up and leave everything to a temporary government. Eventually Iraq will be a sovereign nation, but it will take years.

 

[Mr. E. Yis]

I read today that not only do US troops have immunity from Iraqi courts, no matter what they do; but the US also has the control to stop any political party who it deems 'risky' from being elected in Iraq. This according to Paul Bremer's last minute additions before he left.

 

[LuckyBrand]

I clicked on the one link you said to.. the one about bremer's edicts before he left.. and they made sense overall.. i dont see how they'd hurt the iraqis, it seems mostly to try adn give stability to an instable situation and a situation that could quickly spiral out of control in a place where democracy is not known.

 

[The Promised One]

We're helping them rebuild after the ass-whupping, just like we did with Japan. What other nation out there will kick your ass, and then heal the wounds?

 

[Mike Works]

What other nation out there will kick your ass, and then heal the wounds?

Man, I wish I lived in such an awesome country

 

[LuckyBrand]

We're helping them rebuild after the ass-whupping, just like we did with Japan. What other nation out there will kick your ass, and then heal the wounds?

I know, its kind of amazing...

We bombed the shit out of Japan.

And then we spend TONS of money rebuilding Japan, by ourselves.. our reconstruction efforts were probably criticized by liberals back then as they do today with Iraq... but the military ran the reconstruction, and ended up paying for factories there that were better than the ones we had back home! Needless to say the Japanese people are an amazing people, but we really go thtem back on their feet and were part of the reason they propelled to the #2 economy.

With Iraq, I have no doubt our massive influx of money into reconstruction will leave the country stronger and better than ever, in terms of infastructure and a path for future growth and success.

 

[darscot]

Man you guys love to take credit for other countries. I hate to break it to you but the Japanese are the ones that made their country great. Very American of you to spin dropping a nuke on them as being very helpful.

 

[FightyF]

While I agree that Iraq is not a sovereign nation now, I think it would be unrealistic to expect complete and total soveriegnty only 15 months after the removal of a nearly 30 year Baathist dictatorship, especially given the circumstances of how that happened. Whether you agree or not with the war in Iraq, it happened, and we must deal with the consequences. The U.S. cannot just get up and leave everything to a temporary government. Eventually Iraq will be a sovereign nation, but it will take years.

You hit the nail on the head.

You can't expect sovereignity anytime soon.

Sure, the US has a stranglehold on this interim government in many ways. But it's required. Many different problems can come up, and if the US leaves now (I'm not only talking about the US military), the country can be in it's worst shape in over 30 years.

What we should be concerned about is the stranglehold the US will have on the democratic process. I can understand us holding their hands and leading them up to a democratic status. But to ENFORCE our will on their democratic process...it will create more problems, and it will totally discredit the US (well...even moreso ).

Thus far, before any election has taken place, the US has taken many actions which could be considered un-democratic. They've already talked of banning certain organizations from running in a democratic election, they've shut down newspapers, and they've embraced a policy of assasinations (acting as judge, jury, and executioner) against political opponents (doesn't sound too different than what Saddam used to do).

Mandark, you'd have reason to complain about how the US has set a bad example of how a democratic nation behaves. You'd have reason to complain that the US may meddle with the election process to ensure a pro-US government. But to complain that Iraq is not yet sovereign, doesn't make much sense to me. Had you posted this a year into the future, I'd agree with you completely, but to expect it now is too soon.

 

[Che]

I read today that not only do US troops have immunity from Iraqi courts, no matter what they do; but the US also has the control to stop any political party who it deems 'risky' from being elected in Iraq. This according to Paul Bremer's last minute additions before he left.

Ripclawe can you see this and actually read it? Can you comprehent what it's saying? Can you understand the meaning of this? Comprendre?

PS. Yes I know, you'll definatelly find some lame excuse, I know it's pointless trying to explain to you that 1+1=2... well whatever...

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Man you guys love to take credit for other countries. I hate to break it to you but the Japanese are the ones that made their country great. Very American of you to spin dropping a nuke on them as being very helpful.

For some reason I found this statement to be mindnumbingly funny.

 

[Stele]

Man you guys love to take credit for other countries. I hate to break it to you but the Japanese are the ones that made their country great. Very American of you to spin dropping a nuke on them as being very helpful.

No, the Japanese are the ones that made their country expansionist murderers. If you want to see what Japan would have been today without America, look at Mongolia or the former Soviet bloc.

Edit: Actually, Japan would have been immeasurably worse off than the Soviet bloc given the scenario. 20% arable land on four tiny main islands + miniscule natural resources + nearly no standing cities = back to the stone age for at least 100 years.

 

[LuckyBrand]

Man you guys love to take credit for other countries. I hate to break it to you but the Japanese are the ones that made their country great. Very American of you to spin dropping a nuke on them as being very helpful.

I think you were missing the point..

I wasnt saying dropping bombs on them made them who they are..

And I did even say that I think the japanese people are an amazing group of people.

But I think that we helped them get back on their feet, and ENABLED the japanese people to quickly become the #2 economy by spending so much money rebuilding infrastructure, and even building stuff better than we had it here in America, because it was all brand new state of the art factories, etc, paid for by the American taxpayer.

I dont see why you need to have some quick anti-america holier than thou attitude.

 

[darscot]

Wow must have a hit a nerve somewhere. Got one funny bone so I guess I went 1 for 3.

 

[fart]

MUST NOT STAB SELF IN EYES

...READING THREAD URGE RISING NOOOOOOOO

 

[Leon]

.

 

[Stele]

So yes, you then tried to heal the wounds as much as you could, but to any sane person, that's something you owe to Japan, and not something they should be grateful for.

Japan had as much blood on their hands as Germany did (even better, they didn't have to pay reparations), so frankly, they should be, and I think they are. When I was there, they treated us like Gods, or at least minor deities.

 

[Vennt]

Well, This isn't going to recover its descent into insult-flinging anytime soon.

IBL!


Freeburn.