Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

I heard from a friend that it just happened 5 mins ago, 2 days ahead of schedule.

 

[All Hail C-Webb]

CNN

 

[Suikoguy]

<---------- Has no Cable or Sat

I wonder why it happened now?

EDIT:

Its on CBS too

 

[Socreges]

To throw off terrorists

 

[All Hail C-Webb]

CNN seems to confirm it.
They say the handover was pushed forward, and it might have already happened.

 

[Ripclawe]

Skynews broke the story about an hour ago.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1140761,00.html

IRAQ HANDOVER 'TODAY'

The handover of power in Iraq is to be brought forward to today.

A formal announcement will be made later today, Tony Blair said.

The informal announcement was made by Iraq's foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari.

The handover of power to an interim Iraqi government was supposed to take place on June 30.

Mr Zebari said the deteriorating security situation in the country was one of the reasons why the date had been brought forward.

"We will challenge these elements in Iraq, the anti-democratic elements, by even bringing the handover of sovereignty before June 30 as a sign we are ready for it," he said.

He added: "We have made some very good progress in terms of the new security council (in Iraq) and the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people to take away the level of occupation we have suffered a great deal from.

"There are many Iraqis who are standing up to the challenge. We are here to seek more help and assistance, training and equipment."

 

[Neutron Night]

They're screwed. As soon as the soldiers pull out of there, it will be complete anarchy. Bush really fucked it up.

 

[Suikoguy]

"Mr Zebari said the deteriorating security situation in the country was one of the reasons why the date had been brought forward."

It must be do the "oposite of what you should do day"

cause of the "Security Situation" is "Deteriorating" then that should be a reason to push the date back. But me thinks that the pressure to bring (some) troops back home has been mounting quite a bit on mr. pres

 

[Drey1082]

They're screwed. As soon as the soldiers pull out of there, it will be complete anarchy. Bush really fucked it up.

see the thing is, they won't pull the soldiers out of there for a long, long time.

 

[sc0la]

They're screwed. As soon as the soldiers pull out of there, it will be complete anarchy. Bush really fucked it up.

No one said anything about soldiers pulling out. that is not even on the table right now.

edit: and they shouldn't. I opposed and still oppose the war, and I don't think they should pull out yet. It would be increadibly stupid.

 

[Triumph]

Pull the soldiers out? What the fuck are we gonna do with those 14 military bases we're constructing then, give 'em to the Iraqis? And who said anything about leaving? There's OIL there for the grabbing, you know.

 

[Meier]

It must be do the "oposite of what you should do day"

cause of the "Security Situation" is "Deteriorating" then that should be a reason to push the date back.

I think the idea is that some of these wackjobs will be less likely to continue to cause further "deterioration" if the US is no longer in power there.

 

[Suikoguy]

I think the idea is that some of these wackjobs will be less likely to continue to cause further "deterioration" if the US is no longer in power there.

I hope for the sake of Iraq and our troops stationed there, that you are right.

 

[Triumph]

I think the idea is that some of these wackjobs will be less likely to continue to cause further "deterioration" if the US is no longer in power there.

The US is still in power.

Look, if I go over to my neighbor's house, shoot his wife and dog and hold him at gunpoint for a couple days, but on the 3rd day say, "Ok, you're in charge buddy, but I get to keep this here gun pointed at you", well then NOTHING HAS FUCKING CHANGED, now has it?

 

[Ripclawe]

"Mr Zebari said the deteriorating security situation in the country was one of the reasons why the date had been brought forward."

It must be do the "oposite of what you should do day"

cause of the "Security Situation" is "Deteriorating" then that should be a reason to push the date back. But me thinks that the pressure to bring (some) troops back home has been mounting quite a bit on mr. pres

No, it throws off any "spectacular" attacks that were planned on June 30th, and more importantly with the Iraqis in charge, a lot of chains are thrown off on how to deal with the terrorists. Most likely you will see the troops pull out of major cities and out of sight.

 

[Socreges]

The US is still in power.

Look, if I go over to my neighbor's house, shoot his wife and dog and hold him at gunpoint for a couple days, but on the 3rd day say, "Ok, you're in charge buddy, but I get to keep this here gun pointed at you", well then NOTHING HAS FUCKING CHANGED, now has it?

I was just going to mention that. If the US still has forces policing Iraq, the perception will be much the same.

They've got to pray that shit begins to settle down so the US can gradually move out. It will go hand in hand, but it has to begin with the insurgents calming the fuck down.

 

[Ripclawe]

The handover just happened about a half hour ago, legal documents signed.

They've got to pray that shit begins to settle down so the US can gradually move out. It will go hand in hand, but it has to begin with the insurgents calming the fuck down.

The US is NOT going to gradually move out anytime soon, the other big thing is that 40 shiite tribes have declared because of the murder of some of their tribe in Falluja "war" on the city, if they don't get what they want they are going to level the town and Ramadi

 

[Meier]

Look, if I go over to my neighbor's house, shoot his wife and dog and hold him at gunpoint for a couple days, but on the 3rd day say, "Ok, you're in charge buddy, but I get to keep this here gun pointed at you"

Worst.example.ever. Just curious, is the US still in power of Germany because we have troops stationed there? Do I think that the US will all of the sudden have zero power over Iraq? Of course not, but it's clear the intent of this is to hopefully cause a decrease in the amount of insurgence.

Oh yeah, and constantly being a blowhard never results in you convincing anyone btw -- just a tip since you truly need it.

 

[Triumph]

Here's a tip for you, Meier:

Get a haircut, you hippy. No, seriously, I don't CARE what you think. You are woefully incorrect about this situation. There are not 130,000 US troops in Germany. Our President has not said we are occupying Germany. Germany didn't just get sacked and it's citizens aren't trying to kill and kidnap our troops in the streets. Maybe YOUR analogy is THE WORST EVER.

 

[Ripclawe]

Here's a tip for you, Meier:

Get a haircut, you hippy. No, seriously, I don't CARE what you think. You are woefully incorrect about this situation. There are not 130,000 US troops in Germany. Our President has not said we are occupying Germany. Germany didn't just get sacked and it's citizens aren't trying to kill and kidnap our troops in the streets. Maybe YOUR analogy is THE WORST EVER.

Well, at one point Germany was occupied by Allied forces, it did get sacked, and its citizens did try to kill forces over there, there was also a point where there was transfer of power back to germans and our troops still stayed in large numbers. same thing is happening here.

 

[Ripclawe]

Saddam Hussein to appear before Iraqi Judge within a week.

death penalty being called for.

 

[Triumph]

He asked if the US was still in power TODAY in Germany because we had troops stationed there. Which draws a parellel not with post WW II Germany and Iraq(which would be apt in some ways and still stupid in others like the whole JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR INVASION thing) but with TODAY'S Germany and Iraq.

 

[Ripclawe]

He asked if the US was still in power TODAY in Germany because we had troops stationed there. Which draws a parellel not with post WW II Germany and Iraq(which would be apt in some ways and still stupid in others like the whole JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR INVASION thing) but with TODAY'S Germany and Iraq.

Well the US is not legally in power as of right now in Iraq, just like in Germany and we will have troops in both places for a long time, so his analogy holds true, troops are there and basically no power, but Iraq today is like Germany decades ago.

 

[Triumph]

Well the US is not legally in power as of right now in Iraq, just like in Germany and we will have troops in both places for a long time, so his analogy holds true, troops are there and basically no power, but Iraq today is like Germany decades ago.

Hey O Predictable One, maybe you didn't read everything properly, but HE WASN'T COMPARING CURRENT DAY IRAQ TO POST WW II GERMANY. He was trying to erode my position by saying that since we had soldiers and military bases in Germany today, we must still be in power. Current day Germany and our role there and current day Iraq and our shameful role there ARE NOTHING ALIKE.

 

[sc0la]

I would like to see the troop presence diversified, and pull out a number of our troops as other forces come in so that the overall presence is maintained/reduced as is prudent. I would like for that to be UN, NATO or simply other previously non-coalition forces. That seems to be a bit of a pipe dream though. I especially don't see many new countries eagarly lining up to send troops in the face of all this kidnapping and beheading shit as well.

 

[Shompola]

Smart move by Bush. This will make it look like Bush/USA and Nato were the ones pushing for the new date.

 

[Ripclawe]

Hey O Predictable One, maybe you didn't read everything properly, but HE WASN'T COMPARING CURRENT DAY IRAQ TO POST WW II GERMANY. He was trying to erode my position by saying that since we had soldiers and military bases in Germany today, we must still be in power. Current day Germany and our role there and current day Iraq and our shameful role there ARE NOTHING ALIKE.

Legally we are not in control of anything in Iraq, so he is correct, as of this moment it is like Germany where our troops are but without being in control of day to day operations.

 

[Triumph]

Legally we are not in control of anything in Iraq, so he is correct, as of this moment it is like Germany where our troops are but without being in control of day to day operations.

Hey Ripclawe, want to invest in a new start-up venture I'm in on? We're gonna use magic pixie dust to create an invisible net that will be born aloft by angels and protect the US from terrorist missles.*































*This statement may in fact be more factually possible than Ripclawe's assertion that the US isn't in control any longer in Iraq. I want the good stuff he's smoking, folks.

 

[MetatronM]

Legally we are not in control of anything in Iraq, so he is correct, as of this moment it is like Germany where our troops are but without being in control of day to day operations.

Make sure Al Qaeda gets that memo.

Cause, you know, they're big on legal technicalities.

 

[Guileless]

There's OIL there for the grabbing, you know.

How does the military assist in "oil grabbing?" And, does the United States siphon off more/less/the same oil largesse than Saddam did?

 

[Deku Tree]

Smart move by Bush. This will make it look like Bush/USA and Nato were the ones pushing for the new date.

 

[Hitokage]

Although power has been supposedly handed off, there are still many venues of American influence... most significantly in the area of security, although considering the state of the Iraqi forces(really pathetic) that's understandable.

 

[darscot]

I love this stuff. It just makes me laugh. They handed some guy a piece of paper. The US appointed a government they still have I don't know how many 10 of thousand guys with guns standing around but Iraq is free. LOL... I can't wait for the first ellection one party is going to have millions of dollars in US funding and the others are going to have nothing. I wonder who will win. Democracy at its finest.

 

[Guileless]

darscot, I am willing to bet you that when Iraq eventually has elections, they will be generally acknowledged as the most fair and free elections in any Arab country in 40 years. What do you say?

 

[darscot]

For sure they will! You will be able to vote freely for whomever you like. Double or nothing it's a landslide for one party and no one even has a clue who else is running. Might as well only put one name on the ballet.

 

[open_mouth_]

Sure, it's true that the "handover" happened...

 

[IJoel]

Bush is obviously doing this to help his image here. I sure hope people realize that.

 

[Malleymal]

Whats the deal with saddam?? is he really going back to Iraq to go on trial??? If so, that is the dumbest thing I have heard of in my life.... he will be either Killed or freed by someone sympathetic to him.... I say we get the helllllllllll out... let the UN do what they will.. its not going to happen, i just wish it did..

 

[sc0la]

How does the military assist in "oil grabbing?" And, does the United States siphon off more/less/the same oil largesse than Saddam did?

They secure regions so contractors can work, provide security detail, and sometimes escort work for trucks and contractors, and will provide light intel on whether or not travelling somewhere is "safe" that day. edit: the contractors also live in the armies secure camps from what I understand.

As for how much "largesse" the US siphons off, the american contractors are certainly collecting devestatingly more of the money produced than Iraqi subcontractors and workers. Though the scenario is different.

 

[Guileless]

scola, you are confusing profits for selling oil with the process of drilling for and extracting it. Iraqi contractors did not do that when Saddam was in power; French and Russian consortiums did it. There are no Iraqi companies capable of doing it. I guarantee you those contracts are fairer and more transparent than they were under Saddam.

The profits for selling oil go directly to the Iraqi government, and there is plenty of audit and oversight of that. The profits will now be put to useful purposes as determined by the government (as opposed to presidential palaces and ruinous military spending). So while the army provides protection for the pipelines and workers, I still don't see how that equates to "grabbing" oil.

For sure they will! You will be able to vote freely for whomever you like. Double or nothing it's a landslide for one party and no one even has a clue who else is running. Might as well only put one name on the ballet.

That is incoherent.

 

[sc0la]

Iraqi contractors did not do that when Saddam was in power; French and Russian consortiums did it. There are no Iraqi companies capable of doing it. I guarantee you those contracts are fairer and more transparent than they were under Saddam.

I don't disagree with this.

The profits for selling oil go directly to the Iraqi government, and there is plenty of audit and oversight of that. The profits will now be put to useful purposes as determined by the government (as opposed to presidential palaces and ruinous military spending). So while the army provides protection for the pipelines and workers, I still don't see how that equates to "grabbing" oil.

Whether or not it is a "grab" is not what I am arguing, only that the US forces there do indeed have "something to do wiht it" in that they are a crucial key in the facilitation of the oils extraction.

Perhaps I am being confused by the contraversy regarding possible overcharges for oil by Haliburton to the US government. Are the Iraqis actually selling the oil, or are they being paid in drilling rights while third party companies are actually putting it on the market?

 

[White Man]

Troops aren't coming home any time soon. The original timeline that included the June 30th handover said that troops would be there until at least after the elections, which are in January, barring any delays. I'd imagine we may stick around afterwards for a bit to ensure the aftermath of that if hunky dory.

 

[Guileless]

Halliburton was accused of overcharging the government for providing meals to soldiers, it had nothing to do with oil.

As for the oil contracts, I must plead ignorance as to precisely how the contracts are structured. I can only surmise that it is based on the amount of oil produced rather than a fixed amount for drilling rights, because flunctuations in the price of oil have a major impact on the bottom line of oil-producing nations.

I know how it works here in the US, but we are the exception to the rule. This is the only country in the world where a landowner owns exclusive rights to his minerals.

 

[sc0la]

Halliburton was accused of overcharging the government for providing meals to soldiers, it had nothing to do with oil.

Ahhh okay, I had not followed that at all. Just heard the "blurb" as it were.

As for the oil contracts, I must plead ignorance as to precisely how the contracts are structured.

As must I.

 

[darscot]

I'll try and reiterate my point. I'm sure Fox news and CNN will go on and on about how free and democratic Iraq is when the elections come. The fatal flaw is a democratic election can be bought with marketing. The US will back who ever it is they want in power. I thought Jessie Ventura, Arnold and even Bush himself made it fairly clear as to just how easy it is win an election based almost soley on marketing. How are the opposition parties in Iraq going to compete? In the modern age it is no more difficult to set up a puppet demogracy as it is to install a puppet dictator.

 

[Diablos]

This shit is gonna go over REAL well.[/sarcasm]

 

[Guileless]

There are no "opposition parties" because there is no party in power. There's only an interim prime minister and government that's going to be replaced. It's conceivable that the US will back some candidate or party, but I don't think any of them will want overt assistance from the US as that would damage their cause more than help it.

 

[darscot]

The US will control Iraq from now on. Call it a democaracy call it what ever you want they have been conquered and they will stay that way. All this power handover is bullshit for the press. From now and forever the government of Iraq will do what their told and it dosen't matter one bit who gets "elected". Free and soverign nation my ass.

 

[GigaDrive]

I agree. this "handover" thing is just a sharade. the U.S. controls IRAQ, plain and simple.

Iraq got owned in spring 2003. nothings really changed. this returning sovernty thing is just another shade of U.S. control. not that that is a bad thing in itself.

 

[Guileless]

darscot, on what evidence do you base your sweeping conclusions?