I am re-opening and monitoring this thread. I agree with Freeburn for having closed it. If people do not behave in a civil and respectful manner, they will be escorted from the premises. You know who you are.
And now, to the substance.
1) Yes, American forces have legal immunity in many countries. As Ripclawe helpfully points out, this is a result of treaties we signed with those nations. Sovereing nations choose to grant immunity, and do not have it foisted upon them.
2) Whether the arms supply deal is a bargain for Iraq is irrelevent in the discussion of sovereignty, as is the nationality of the company supplying weapons. A sovereign nation negotiates and signs its own agreements.
3) Whether or not Bremer's edicts help or hinder Iraq is not relevent in determining sovereignty. A sovereign nation writes its own laws.
4) The US often grants aid to other countries, who then distribute that aid themselves. It is significant that the US is doling out the contracts themselves, especially when considering the ratio of the reconstruction budget to that of the Iraqi government.
5) Bremer's edicts will be very hard to overturn, requiring a consensus of high-level Iraqi officials who owe their positions to the US.
The general ideas here are pretty well accepted: Guns and money translate into power. Several people seem to be confusing the "this is for their own good" argument with the "they are truly independent" argument.
It is quite another thing, and totally possible, to argue that there is no sovereignty now, but that this is a necessary consequence, as Nintendo Ate My Children and Fight For Freedom argue. Note for Fight For Freedom: Read the original post. I am not complaining about the situation, but correcting the facts. Several people in a previous thread seemed to think that power really had been transferred.
The Iraq/Japan/Germany analogies probably deserve a thread to themselves. There are some glaring differences between the situations, but I'd rather read up on the post-WWII before discussing it.
Ripclawe: I can understand why Pincus would be a bete noire for hawks, but is there any reason deeper than, as the Daily Show put it, "Facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush bias?" Did that article have factual errors? Surely he's as credible as Edward Jay Epstein?
PS Play nice, guys. I mean it.
And now, to the substance.
1) Yes, American forces have legal immunity in many countries. As Ripclawe helpfully points out, this is a result of treaties we signed with those nations. Sovereing nations choose to grant immunity, and do not have it foisted upon them.
2) Whether the arms supply deal is a bargain for Iraq is irrelevent in the discussion of sovereignty, as is the nationality of the company supplying weapons. A sovereign nation negotiates and signs its own agreements.
3) Whether or not Bremer's edicts help or hinder Iraq is not relevent in determining sovereignty. A sovereign nation writes its own laws.
4) The US often grants aid to other countries, who then distribute that aid themselves. It is significant that the US is doling out the contracts themselves, especially when considering the ratio of the reconstruction budget to that of the Iraqi government.
5) Bremer's edicts will be very hard to overturn, requiring a consensus of high-level Iraqi officials who owe their positions to the US.
The general ideas here are pretty well accepted: Guns and money translate into power. Several people seem to be confusing the "this is for their own good" argument with the "they are truly independent" argument.
It is quite another thing, and totally possible, to argue that there is no sovereignty now, but that this is a necessary consequence, as Nintendo Ate My Children and Fight For Freedom argue. Note for Fight For Freedom: Read the original post. I am not complaining about the situation, but correcting the facts. Several people in a previous thread seemed to think that power really had been transferred.
The Iraq/Japan/Germany analogies probably deserve a thread to themselves. There are some glaring differences between the situations, but I'd rather read up on the post-WWII before discussing it.
Ripclawe: I can understand why Pincus would be a bete noire for hawks, but is there any reason deeper than, as the Daily Show put it, "Facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush bias?" Did that article have factual errors? Surely he's as credible as Edward Jay Epstein?
PS Play nice, guys. I mean it.