US opposes Iraqi sovereignty

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Gaard,

Thanks guys...or should I say "grates agere"?

You could but, I'd then have to refer to my Black's and probably not find it in there.. 😀 And, I ain't gonna ask no priest.. 😀 Well.. Moonbeam would know, being a Jesuit and all..

Not sure, LR. It's either free jello or to give thanks. 😀 I know it's not Iraqi sovereignty though.

 

[LunarRay]

Not sure, LR. It's either free jello or to give thanks. I know it's not Iraqi sovereignty though.


Ahhhh.... Grates agere sovereignty... Them Iraqi need learning Splinguish.. and sprecken it gooderly.

Like Antony they speak by leave of Brutus.. and we be the Brut US.. They must choose their words carefully lest we seek bad guys with our MOAB's in their meeting rooms.. we can do this I'm told..
🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, some times ya gots ta kill people to make um be free.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard, Winston.

Are you now calling the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution liars also?

I guess it's possible that Bush (and others) believe that sovereignty can be full even though there are limits to it. I (and others) don't agree.


And I hate Lime jello. 🙂

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard, Winston.

Are you now calling the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution liars also?

I guess it's possible that Bush (and others) believe that sovereignty can be full even though there are limits to it. I (and others) don't agree.


And I hate Lime jello. 🙂

Gaard, are you now calling the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution liars?


Nice conversation loonie and moonie.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard, Winston.

Are you now calling the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution liars also?

I guess it's possible that Bush (and others) believe that sovereignty can be full even though there are limits to it. I (and others) don't agree.


And I hate Lime jello. 🙂

Gaard, are you now calling the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution liars?


Nice conversation loonie and moonie.

Not necessarily...
I guess it's possible that Bush (and others) believe that sovereignty can be full even though there are limits to it. I (and others) don't agree.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, Like Henry Ford said, in a soverign nation you can have any color ford you want so long as it's black.

 

[Ozoned]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/June1404RevisedJune30DF.pdf">The Handover of Iraqi Sovereignty and
the Reality of June 30th</a>


Updated
June 14, 2004





2004 The Handover of Iraqi Sovereignty and
the Reality of June 30th


June 30 Marks:


· the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition forces to the representatives of the Iraqi
people.

· the first day that the new Transitional Administrative Law, which includes a historic bill
of rights, becomes law of the land. (Following the elections in early 2005 for a permanent
government, a final constitution will be drawn and ratified.)

· the beginning of diplomatic relations with Iraq, which will mark the end of the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) and establishment of the U.S. Mission.

· the beginning of a new phase of economic, military, and political cooperation between
the United States, the Coalition, and the Iraqi civilian government.

· the commencement of the first democratic government in Iraq, as well as the first Arab
democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

· the next step in the development of Iraq?s democracy and civil society?including
preparations for elections in early 2005.

· an opportunity for Iraqis to rule themselves under the principles of freedom and liberty
for the first time in their modern history (the new Iraqi Interim Government began
operating on June 1 after the Iraqi Governing Council decided to dissolve).

· the first day that Iraqis will be responsible for determining the fate of Saddam Hussein
and his henchmen.

· the first day that the Iraqis will chart the course for their own political and economic
future.



What June 30 Does NOT Represent:


· The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546, which
was unanimously passed on June 8, allows U.S. soldiers to remain in Iraq under U.S.
command as part of a multinational force.

· The end of U.S. engagement and reconstruction efforts in Iraq: The United States and
its coalition partners will continue to maintain a military presence throughout Iraq to assist
with the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq; the United States will transfer on-theground
responsibility to a newly created American embassy; and the United States will
continue to provide reconstruction monies and participate in massive reconstruction and
reform activities.

· The end of American interests in Iraq: The United States has a vested interest in having
Iraq become a functioning, stable democracy that benefits the Iraqi people, and also serves
as a source of democratic influence on the peoples and leaders throughout the region.
Additionally, U.S. and allied security interests will be greatly improved with a stable Iraq. A
free, democratic Iraq denies terrorists a sanctuary and country of support.

· The delay or postponement of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi government: To
delay the handover would send the wrong message to the Iraqis about U.S. intentions, and
would send a dangerous message to terrorists and extremists that violence and chaos ha ve an
effect on American resolve. The Iraqis hope soon to stand up to the terrorists on their own,
but recognize that it is in their own vital national security interests to accept the Coalition?s
help in training and equipping the new Iraqi security forces.

· The end of hostilities toward the U.S. presence in Iraq, or the end of insurgent and
terrorist forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and deny democracy: This requires a vibrant
U.S. presence to work with the Iraqis to stabilize their country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are we talking about something besides gov't sovereignty here?😕

Again, Iraq wants our forces there because they aren't ready to provide enough security for themselves. They however do not and will not control our troops. Our troops aren't theirs to control so sovereignty doesn't get defined by who controls our troops there.
The issue here seems to be "veto" power that Iraq wasn't even asking for. The French thought someone should have veto power(go figure:roll: ) so they tried to make a stink about it. Looks like some people bought into their BS.

CkG

Yes, "sovereignty" without any adjectives. What you're talking about is limited sovereignty. That's fine if you think that's what Iraq should have, but it sounds like the UN wanted more sovereignty for Iraq. That includes having a say on what foreign governments do in your country.

Um - no. Iraq will control what is Iraq's. Our military is not Iraqs to control - ever. They want us there to provide security- come with it what it may. This was not a request by the Iraqis, it was by the French.

And no they didn't disappoint me - I think they(UN) are finally getting back with the program - something they should have stuck with since they felt it necessary to even bother with Iraq in the first place.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/June1404RevisedJune30DF.pdf">The Handover of Iraqi Sovereignty and
the Reality of June 30th</a>


Updated
June 14, 2004





2004 The Handover of Iraqi Sovereignty and
the Reality of June 30th


June 30 Marks:


· the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition forces to the representatives of the Iraqi
people.

· the first day that the new Transitional Administrative Law, which includes a historic bill
of rights, becomes law of the land. (Following the elections in early 2005 for a permanent
government, a final constitution will be drawn and ratified.)

· the beginning of diplomatic relations with Iraq, which will mark the end of the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) and establishment of the U.S. Mission.

· the beginning of a new phase of economic, military, and political cooperation between
the United States, the Coalition, and the Iraqi civilian government.

· the commencement of the first democratic government in Iraq, as well as the first Arab
democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

· the next step in the development of Iraq?s democracy and civil society?including
preparations for elections in early 2005.

· an opportunity for Iraqis to rule themselves under the principles of freedom and liberty
for the first time in their modern history (the new Iraqi Interim Government began
operating on June 1 after the Iraqi Governing Council decided to dissolve).

· the first day that Iraqis will be responsible for determining the fate of Saddam Hussein
and his henchmen.

· the first day that the Iraqis will chart the course for their own political and economic
future.



What June 30 Does NOT Represent:


· The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546, which
was unanimously passed on June 8, allows U.S. soldiers to remain in Iraq under U.S.
command as part of a multinational force.

· The end of U.S. engagement and reconstruction efforts in Iraq: The United States and
its coalition partners will continue to maintain a military presence throughout Iraq to assist
with the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq; the United States will transfer on-theground
responsibility to a newly created American embassy; and the United States will
continue to provide reconstruction monies and participate in massive reconstruction and
reform activities.

· The end of American interests in Iraq: The United States has a vested interest in having
Iraq become a functioning, stable democracy that benefits the Iraqi people, and also serves
as a source of democratic influence on the peoples and leaders throughout the region.
Additionally, U.S. and allied security interests will be greatly improved with a stable Iraq. A
free, democratic Iraq denies terrorists a sanctuary and country of support.

· The delay or postponement of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi government: To
delay the handover would send the wrong message to the Iraqis about U.S. intentions, and
would send a dangerous message to terrorists and extremists that violence and chaos ha ve an
effect on American resolve. The Iraqis hope soon to stand up to the terrorists on their own,
but recognize that it is in their own vital national security interests to accept the Coalition?s
help in training and equipping the new Iraqi security forces.

· The end of hostilities toward the U.S. presence in Iraq, or the end of insurgent and
terrorist forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and deny democracy: This requires a vibrant
U.S. presence to work with the Iraqis to stabilize their country.

very good. Time for the Iraqis to step up even more now.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are we talking about something besides gov't sovereignty here?😕

Again, Iraq wants our forces there because they aren't ready to provide enough security for themselves. They however do not and will not control our troops. Our troops aren't theirs to control so sovereignty doesn't get defined by who controls our troops there.
The issue here seems to be "veto" power that Iraq wasn't even asking for. The French thought someone should have veto power(go figure:roll: ) so they tried to make a stink about it. Looks like some people bought into their BS.

CkG

Yes, "sovereignty" without any adjectives. What you're talking about is limited sovereignty. That's fine if you think that's what Iraq should have, but it sounds like the UN wanted more sovereignty for Iraq. That includes having a say on what foreign governments do in your country.

Um - no. Iraq will control what is Iraq's. Our military is not Iraqs to control - ever. They want us there to provide security- come with it what it may. This was not a request by the Iraqis, it was by the French.

And no they didn't disappoint me - I think they(UN) are finally getting back with the program - something they should have stuck with since they felt it necessary to even bother with Iraq in the first place.

CkG

Back with the same lame line I see.

When a country has an army within it that can roam and kill at will without that country's approval, it is not fully sovereign.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are we talking about something besides gov't sovereignty here?😕

Again, Iraq wants our forces there because they aren't ready to provide enough security for themselves. They however do not and will not control our troops. Our troops aren't theirs to control so sovereignty doesn't get defined by who controls our troops there.
The issue here seems to be "veto" power that Iraq wasn't even asking for. The French thought someone should have veto power(go figure:roll: ) so they tried to make a stink about it. Looks like some people bought into their BS.

CkG

Yes, "sovereignty" without any adjectives. What you're talking about is limited sovereignty. That's fine if you think that's what Iraq should have, but it sounds like the UN wanted more sovereignty for Iraq. That includes having a say on what foreign governments do in your country.

Um - no. Iraq will control what is Iraq's. Our military is not Iraqs to control - ever. They want us there to provide security- come with it what it may. This was not a request by the Iraqis, it was by the French.

And no they didn't disappoint me - I think they(UN) are finally getting back with the program - something they should have stuck with since they felt it necessary to even bother with Iraq in the first place.

CkG

Back with the same lame line I see.

When a country has an army within it that can roam and kill at will without that country's approval, it is not fully sovereign.

Back with the same BS I see. :roll: Again I don't see how you or anyone else can seriously consider giving control of OUR TROOPS to the Iraqi gov't. They want us there, they know what may come with it, they didn't make a stink about it - FRANCE did(go figure). Anyway - it's pretty moot anyway - the resolution passed and France backed down from their BS. The Iraq gov't will control what is theirs - nothing more - nothing less.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad, why don't you just call it "limited sovereignty" and call it a day?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are we talking about something besides gov't sovereignty here?😕

Again, Iraq wants our forces there because they aren't ready to provide enough security for themselves. They however do not and will not control our troops. Our troops aren't theirs to control so sovereignty doesn't get defined by who controls our troops there.
The issue here seems to be "veto" power that Iraq wasn't even asking for. The French thought someone should have veto power(go figure:roll: ) so they tried to make a stink about it. Looks like some people bought into their BS.

CkG

Yes, "sovereignty" without any adjectives. What you're talking about is limited sovereignty. That's fine if you think that's what Iraq should have, but it sounds like the UN wanted more sovereignty for Iraq. That includes having a say on what foreign governments do in your country.

Um - no. Iraq will control what is Iraq's. Our military is not Iraqs to control - ever. They want us there to provide security- come with it what it may. This was not a request by the Iraqis, it was by the French.

And no they didn't disappoint me - I think they(UN) are finally getting back with the program - something they should have stuck with since they felt it necessary to even bother with Iraq in the first place.

CkG

Back with the same lame line I see.

When a country has an army within it that can roam and kill at will without that country's approval, it is not fully sovereign.

Back with the same BS I see. :roll: Again I don't see how you or anyone else can seriously consider giving control of OUR TROOPS to the Iraqi gov't. They want us there, they know what may come with it, they didn't make a stink about it - FRANCE did(go figure). Anyway - it's pretty moot anyway - the resolution passed and France backed down from their BS. The Iraq gov't will control what is theirs - nothing more - nothing less.

CkG

Control? HA! Hardly. Maybe you think the Japanese have "control" over our troops. Maybe the Germans. Obviously you do because the troops there can't roam the countryside shooting people.

So do the Germans have our troops doing handsprings since they "control" them?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, why don't you just call it "limited sovereignty" and call it a day?

Why don't you guys realize that sovereignty doesn't mean controling our troops? Yes it's a matter of sematics or whatnot like glenn1 said but it still doesn't mean Iraq isn't sovereign - they will control what is theirs.

CkG

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, why don't you just call it "limited sovereignty" and call it a day?

Why didn't the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution call it "limited" soverignty than?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, why don't you just call it "limited sovereignty" and call it a day?

Why didn't the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution call it "limited" soverignty than?

Good question, I'll be sure to ask them. Come on you guys, the definition of "sovereign" is very specific. This Clinton-esque semantics weaseling is what irritates me the most. Just call it "limited sovereignty" and you'd have it correct. All you'd have to do is personalize the scenario a bit to see what I mean:

What if a foreign army occupied the U.S. and roamed at will, executing operations that the U.S. had no say-so over or any degree of control over? Would the U.S. still retain its full sovereignty?

And no I don't expect Iraq to control our troops, but I DO expect that we'd call the situation what it really is.

 

[etech]

Good question, I'll be sure to ask them.

Let me know when you do. I have a little more faith in their definition than yours.

"This Clinton-esque semantics weaseling is what irritates me the most."

Yes, I agree, it is getting irritating. First it is put your trust in the UN, than you blithely dismiss them. On this issue, I have to say I trust them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, why don't you just call it "limited sovereignty" and call it a day?

Why didn't the UN and all of the nations that signed the resolution call it "limited" soverignty than?

Good question, I'll be sure to ask them. Come on you guys, the definition of "sovereign" is very specific. This Clinton-esque semantics weaseling is what irritates me the most. Just call it "limited sovereignty" and you'd have it correct. All you'd have to do is personalize the scenario a bit to see what I mean:

What if a foreign army occupied the U.S. and roamed at will, executing operations that the U.S. had no say-so over or any degree of control over? Would the U.S. still retain its full sovereignty?

And no I don't expect Iraq to control our troops, but I DO expect that we'd call the situation what it really is.

Usually the tactic here is to duck the issue and bring up something else such as the UN as a diversion rather than admit that the Fearless Leader might not be stating things as they are. They are no better than those who supported Clinton when he was doing his worst. A lie is OK if it is your guy who tells it or so their comments would leave you to believe.

 

[etech]

Winston,

Are you saying that the UN is not stating things as they are?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
Winston,

Are you saying that the UN is not stating things as they are?

I am saying that Bush is not saying things as they are. If one person says the Sun is blue, and a thousand join in, it makes no difference. How many additional Frenchmen would have been needed to make Dreyfus deserving of imprisonment? I don't know the precise wording of the UN resolution regarding this, but if they tried to twist things around and I lived in a country where the leader said what Bush did, then I would call him on it. I live here in the US. Bush leads this country, and he is accountable to you and me. You seem satisfied with how he handles this. I am not. I called Clinton a liar. I call Bush one as well at least in this. If the UN had backed CLinton w/ Monica, I would not have changed my opinion of the man. I will not here either. Limited sovereignty? An odd concept, like being half pregnant, but it most approaches what is proposed. Full sovereignty while foreign troops can launch an offensive even though the host government were to forbid it? That is hogwash.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech
Winston,

Are you saying that the UN is not stating things as they are?

I am saying that Bush is not saying things as they are. If one person says the Sun is blue, and a thousand join in, it makes no difference. How many additional Frenchmen would have been needed to make Dreyfus deserving of imprisonment? I don't know the precise wording of the UN resolution regarding this, but if they tried to twist things around and I lived in a country where the leader said what Bush did, then I would call him on it. I live here in the US. Bush leads this country, and he is accountable to you and me. You seem satisfied with how he handles this. I am not. I called Clinton a liar. I call Bush one as well at least in this. If the UN had backed CLinton w/ Monica, I would not have changed my opinion of the man. I will not here either. Limited sovereignty? An odd concept, like being half pregnant, but it most approaches what is proposed. Full sovereignty while foreign troops can launch an offensive even though the host government were to forbid it? That is hogwash.

Winston, the link to the UN resolution has been posted in this thread. If you wish to ignore it, the wording it used, and the unanimous vote on it, that is your choice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech
Winston,

Are you saying that the UN is not stating things as they are?

I am saying that Bush is not saying things as they are. If one person says the Sun is blue, and a thousand join in, it makes no difference. How many additional Frenchmen would have been needed to make Dreyfus deserving of imprisonment? I don't know the precise wording of the UN resolution regarding this, but if they tried to twist things around and I lived in a country where the leader said what Bush did, then I would call him on it. I live here in the US. Bush leads this country, and he is accountable to you and me. You seem satisfied with how he handles this. I am not. I called Clinton a liar. I call Bush one as well at least in this. If the UN had backed CLinton w/ Monica, I would not have changed my opinion of the man. I will not here either. Limited sovereignty? An odd concept, like being half pregnant, but it most approaches what is proposed. Full sovereignty while foreign troops can launch an offensive even though the host government were to forbid it? That is hogwash.

Winston, the link to the UN resolution has been posted in this thread. If you wish to ignore it, the wording it used, and the unanimous vote on it, that is your choice.

It would alter what Bush said how?
Edit: and how many more Frenchmen would have been required to justify Dreyfus going to Devil's Island? How many saying the Sun is blue to make it so?

I think it perfectly reasonable for you to make a thread about the UN and what it has said. It could spark some lively debate, and maybe a good point.

This thread is about Bush, HIS comments, and full Iraqi sovereignty, or the lack thereof.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech
Winston,

Are you saying that the UN is not stating things as they are?

I am saying that Bush is not saying things as they are. If one person says the Sun is blue, and a thousand join in, it makes no difference. How many additional Frenchmen would have been needed to make Dreyfus deserving of imprisonment? I don't know the precise wording of the UN resolution regarding this, but if they tried to twist things around and I lived in a country where the leader said what Bush did, then I would call him on it. I live here in the US. Bush leads this country, and he is accountable to you and me. You seem satisfied with how he handles this. I am not. I called Clinton a liar. I call Bush one as well at least in this. If the UN had backed CLinton w/ Monica, I would not have changed my opinion of the man. I will not here either. Limited sovereignty? An odd concept, like being half pregnant, but it most approaches what is proposed. Full sovereignty while foreign troops can launch an offensive even though the host government were to forbid it? That is hogwash.

Winston, the link to the UN resolution has been posted in this thread. If you wish to ignore it, the wording it used, and the unanimous vote on it, that is your choice.

It would alter what Bush said how?

It doesn't alter what Pres. Bush said, it is in full agreement with what Pres. Bush said. You are the odd man out in that group.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech
Winston,

Are you saying that the UN is not stating things as they are?

I am saying that Bush is not saying things as they are. If one person says the Sun is blue, and a thousand join in, it makes no difference. How many additional Frenchmen would have been needed to make Dreyfus deserving of imprisonment? I don't know the precise wording of the UN resolution regarding this, but if they tried to twist things around and I lived in a country where the leader said what Bush did, then I would call him on it. I live here in the US. Bush leads this country, and he is accountable to you and me. You seem satisfied with how he handles this. I am not. I called Clinton a liar. I call Bush one as well at least in this. If the UN had backed CLinton w/ Monica, I would not have changed my opinion of the man. I will not here either. Limited sovereignty? An odd concept, like being half pregnant, but it most approaches what is proposed. Full sovereignty while foreign troops can launch an offensive even though the host government were to forbid it? That is hogwash.

Winston, the link to the UN resolution has been posted in this thread. If you wish to ignore it, the wording it used, and the unanimous vote on it, that is your choice.

It would alter what Bush said how?

It doesn't alter what Pres. Bush said, it is in full agreement with what Pres. Bush said. You are the odd man out in that group.

So be it. When someone presents me with evidence contrary to my contention then there are grounds for debate. That a resolution says a thing does not redefine the facts, it merely ignores them. Neither the UN nor Bush needs my approval, and I am in no way obliged or am able to change what is to suit them.