1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Iraqi Sovereignty? / Latest Posts

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Nuclearcow — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:46:23 GMT

[quote]"Save Darfur" is so much more "moral."[/quote]They did just indict the president of Sudan on war crime charges.

Perhaps this was due its own thread?

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/14/darfur.charges/index.html[/url]

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Konrad von Richtmark — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:52:07 GMT

Direct monetary grants? Well, at least it frees the gov't from responsibility to guarantee efficiency. When the guy who handles the money is the guy who benefits from it, there is a greater personal incentive in using it correctly. To engage in corruption would be to steal from yourself ;)

I smell Keynesian economic rationale: Increase spending, increase demand, and unused production capacity will start be put to use.

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:06:54 GMT

[quote]Despite such problems, Iraq's oil revenues, an estimated $70 billion this year, still provide the best chance of leveraging the country's fragile period of calm [/quote]

"Save Darfur" is so much more "moral."

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:14:25 GMT

Can you believe it? Neutral/Good News from Iraq....and on CNN no less!!!!

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.money.ap/index.html] PM hopes to lift Iraq by doling out cold, hard oil cash[/url]

Not terribly different than our beloved tax stimulus rebate, but with a tad more personal touch.

[quote]It is a politician's dream: Handing out cold, hard cash to people on the street as they plead for help. Iraq's prime minister has been doing just that in recent weeks, doling out Iraqi dinars as an aide trails behind, keeping a tally.[/quote]

[quote] The cash handouts are just one small -- if eye-catching -- part of a major investment push this summer by Iraq's government. [b]The aim is to rebuild basic services and jumpstart Iraq's damaged economy by quickly distributing as much of the country's glut of oil revenue as possible.[/b]

U.S. officials and a fed-up American public are urging exactly that -- for Iraq to spend its own money, not America's, to rebuild the country now that violence has eased.[/quote]

[quote] Yet the Iraqi effort runs a high risk of failure: The government is disorganized, fears of favoritism remain and the shadow of corruption haunts every step.

"Money is not a problem," al-Maliki told a recent gathering of tribal chiefs in the southern city of Basra, after government forces had defeated Shiite extremists there. "But we must put it in honest hands to spend."

Despite such problems, Iraq's oil revenues, an estimated $70 billion this year, still provide the best chance of leveraging the country's fragile period of calm into something more lasting, many officials say.[/quote]

And the best part is, this is their dime, not ours. (Hmmmmm....Tosk.....I wonder if anyone knows what that phrase means anymore, or even where it comes from, hehe)

[quote] Yet most recent big spending announcements have been Iraqi: $100 million to rebuild Sadr City; another $100 million to the Shiite city of Basra after fighting there; $100 million for another southern Shiite town, Amarah; and $83 million to help internal refugees return home.

It's unclear how fast the project money will actually get out. Past U.S. surveys have found Iraqi officials actually spent only tiny portions of the money they had allocated, often because of disorganization in government offices or a lack of technical know-how.[/quote]

Yeah, yeah so there is corruption, inefficiency, disorganization and other morass. I ask you this, which country DOESN'T have those problems!?

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:00:53 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (6/9/2008)[/b][hr][quote]Obama said troops should be sent to three locations _ home to the United States, in countries around Iraq to prevent regional conflict and to Afghanistan, which he said is in danger of falling back to the Taliban[/quote]

No jerm, the article you cite mentions combat forces in Iraq, but there will be other forces in the area, around Iraq (like Quwait, Baharain, and Qatar, which already have a solid presence of US forces), and even within Iraq (with refence to particulars like the US Embassy and what not). Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but you seem to recall that USA has a very large deployment in the Persian Gulf. I seriously doubt Obama will remove that element as well.[/quote]

I have come to have serious doubts about ANYTHING Democrats say they will do. I seem to recall that the rhetoric which got the Democrats back into a majority in Congress was "Out of Iraq asap!!"

Well, Coalition forces are still there, and progress has been made. If nothing else the nature of the violence has transformed, and it has not kept the same pace and distribution. Time is on our side, as long as we have patience and perserverance.

Why, oh WHY cannot you left-slanted people let it go? We KNOW you did not approve of the U.S. invading Iraq in the first place; so you must insist on rash de-militarizations as some way to vindicate your long-held resentment about your un-vindicated convictions? Get over it!

There is now a responsbility to the Iraqis, and to the world to insure that the processes set in motion in 2003 culminate in the best possible way. ANY policy of default reductions in troop deployments in Iraq or Afghanistan other than those informed by military and strategic reality are sheer idiocy. WE MUST WIN first; then we can declare peace, love, and harmony.

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

jerm — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:43:09 GMT

The problem is they don't just kill each other...

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:37:25 GMT

Good. Let the militias kill each other then. They deserve it.

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

jerm — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:35:24 GMT

Well, if there are no combat troops, they won't have the manpower to stop the militias. Guarding an embassy is almost pointless to security.

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:33:37 GMT

[quote]Obama said troops should be sent to three locations _ home to the United States, in countries around Iraq to prevent regional conflict and to Afghanistan, which he said is in danger of falling back to the Taliban[/quote]

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

jerm — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:24:23 GMT

[quote](which not even Obama proposes)[/quote]

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001275.html]He doesn't?[/url] :blink:

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:14:04 GMT

The 'Red Army' in Iraq is not the Soviets seeking hegemony over the region, it's the Iranians. That is to say, if America withdraws completly (which not even Obama proposes) you can bet Iran will seek to fill the void!

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:32:41 GMT

[quote][b]Konrad von Richtmark (6/9/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]Scipio Africanus (6/8/2008)[/b][hr]I wonder how long it took for Germany, Japan, and Italy to regain full sovereignty?

Did they "ever?"[/quote]

It is interesting that you ask this, as you like to present these countries as examples of how US liberation brings good stuff, and not "enslavement to the US Hegemony". Undermining yourself, eh ;)

Well, as far as I know, all the US troops left in those countries are there because the governments of those countries want it. I'm sure Bush would be grateful if he could send those 45,000 troops stationed in Okinawa to Iraq.[/quote]

Ah, so in other words, the answer to my question is: Yes, they DID regain full sovereignty.

So, the historical precedent is: trust the U.S., let us get the job done, and you'll all be better off in the long-run! :D

With respect to how long it took for them to regain full sovereignty [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_since_1945#The_Division_of_Germany]lotsa details here[/url] sounds to me like it was pretty much total bedlam for 10 or 15 years eh? My recollection is that more Germans died AFTER the end of WWII than during the last year of the war . . . something like that.

[quote]Of the roughly 12.4 million Germans who in 1944 were living in territory that following the dismembering of Germany would become part of post-war Poland, an estimated 6 million fled or were evacuated before the advance of the Red Army. Of the remainder up to 1.1 million died, 3.6 million were expelled by the Poles, one million were designated as Poles, and 300,000 remained.[/quote]

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Konrad von Richtmark — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:30:01 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (6/8/2008)[/b][hr]I wonder how long it took for Germany, Japan, and Italy to regain full sovereignty?

Did they "ever?"[/quote]

It is interesting that you ask this, as you like to present these countries as examples of how US liberation brings good stuff, and not "enslavement to the US Hegemony". Undermining yourself, eh ;)

Well, as far as I know, all the US troops left in those countries are there because the governments of those countries want it. I'm sure Bush would be grateful if he could send those 45,000 troops stationed in Okinawa to Iraq.

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Nuclearcow — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:31:48 GMT

During 9/11 and afterwards, CNN and others talked about the [url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/01/shadow.government/]"shadow government"[/url] that would step in during crisis, if our government was wiped out, etc. They talked as though it was no big deal and was a failsafe for us. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26212-2002Mar1?language=printer]Congress was not advised[/url] of the existence of this shadow government. I don't remember voting for them, or even hearing who they are, do you?

I guess only wacky conspiracy theorists worry about our future sovereignty.

Jerm hijacked it 1st! :P

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

jerm — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:12:21 GMT

Nah, let the buggers rot. Who cares if there's mass genocide and Al Quaeda is emboldened. I'm voting Obama. Isolationism!:w00t:

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Black Owl — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:31:40 GMT

I don't think we need another State. We need to force their hand to take control of themselves. And bugger out when the security is right. To do so earlier invalidates the lives spent already. Cost of more lives? Most likely. But how many will be slain in revenge attacks and open power struggles if we pull out before Iraq can stabilize? We created this. We really ought to see it through.

RE: Iraqi Sovereignty?

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:34:13 GMT

I wonder how long it took for Germany, Japan, and Italy to regain full sovereignty?

Did they "ever?"

Iraqi Sovereignty?

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:25:08 GMT

Is it an oxymoron at this point?

[url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812446,00.html]At Odds Over Iraqi 'Sovereignty'[/url]

[quote]U.S. and Iraqi officials are currently locked in tense negotiations on a pact to ratify a long-term American presence in Iraq. But it's becoming increasingly clear that differences between the two sides make agreement unlikely before the July 31 deadline set by the Bush Administration.

The proposed deal is controversial both in Washington — where Democrats see it as a move to tie the hands of the next U.S. President, and are pressing for it to be subject to congressional approval — and also in Baghdad, where many Iraqi leaders fear that they're being asked to sign away their sovereignty. Negotiators for both sides emphasize that respect for Iraqi sovereignty will be the basis of any deal. But they don't appear to mean the same things by "sovereignty." Differences over the extent of control the Iraqi government would have over the deployment and activities of U.S. military forces on their territory has cast a shadow over prospects for an imminent deal. "These are negotiations between two sovereign parties," said a senior U.S. official in Baghdad, "each of which has the ability to say yes, or to say no."[/quote]

Verry interesting.