US opposes Iraqi sovereignty

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
You mean something like this...

"A UN Security Council resolution, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, will legitimise a formal US military presence in Iraq until the end of 2005 when the country ratifies its constitution and holds national elections, according to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.


Now what was that "lie" again?

The new text, distributed on Monday and still under discussion, pledges "close coordination" between U.S.-led international troops and the interim government that takes office on June 30.

But in general it changes little, and ignores France's proposal that Iraq should have a right to say "no" to any major U.S. military operation.

===

From the original post. It was about this resolution. Your post does not address the issue.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech
You mean something like this...

"A UN Security Council resolution, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, will legitimise a formal US military presence in Iraq until the end of 2005 when the country ratifies its constitution and holds national elections, according to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.


Now what was that "lie" again?

The new text, distributed on Monday and still under discussion, pledges "close coordination" between U.S.-led international troops and the interim government that takes office on June 30.

But in general it changes little, and ignores France's proposal that Iraq should have a right to say "no" to any major U.S. military operation.

===

From the original post. It was about this resolution. Your post does not address the issue.

Oh yeah, France, (and Germany). Tell me again how many troops they have on the ground in Iraq to ensure Iraqis security so that it may have free elections next year.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: etech
You mean something like this...

"A UN Security Council resolution, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, will legitimise a formal US military presence in Iraq until the end of 2005 when the country ratifies its constitution and holds national elections, according to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.


Now what was that "lie" again?

The new text, distributed on Monday and still under discussion, pledges "close coordination" between U.S.-led international troops and the interim government that takes office on June 30.

But in general it changes little, and ignores France's proposal that Iraq should have a right to say "no" to any major U.S. military operation.

===

From the original post. It was about this resolution. Your post does not address the issue.

Oh yeah, France, (and Germany). Tell me again how many troops they have on the ground in Iraq to ensure Iraqis security so that it may have free elections next year.

Diversion. It does not address the issue.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: - The Iraqis don't have control over our military - just as it should be. Our military is ours - not theirs. We control it - not them. I'm sorry if you think that makes it not "full sovereignty" but IMO that stance is asinine.

CkG

Full Sovereignty would seem to mean that the Iraqi Government would have to agree to the presence of the American troops and under agreed terms. Sovereignty is sorta just that.
I'd like for the folks in Washington to refer to the Iraqi situation using words that correctly denotes the condition under which the ' Iraqi Nation' exists. If this was done then we'd have at least one less thread. 🙂

 

[glenn1]

And why would we care? As long as we are the superior force within their borders their legal system means diddly squat to us.

Because depending on the action we took, we'd either have to submit to American servicemembers subject to Iraqi prisons and/or executions, or directly intervene in the internal legal affairs of a sovereign state - which would be at best a major international incident, at worst an act of war. Either course of action would be political suicide for any Administration.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: - The Iraqis don't have control over our military - just as it should be. Our military is ours - not theirs. We control it - not them. I'm sorry if you think that makes it not "full sovereignty" but IMO that stance is asinine.

CkG

Full Sovereignty would seem to mean that the Iraqi Government would have to agree to the presence of the American troops and under agreed terms. Sovereignty is sorta just that.
I'd like for the folks in Washington to refer to the Iraqi situation using words that correctly denotes the condition under which the ' Iraqi Nation' exists. If this was done then we'd have at least one less thread. 🙂

The Iraqi government does agree.

Therefore it seems that if certain people weren't so deadset on trying to find things to carp about when they really aren't an issue we wouldn't have these threads.

Nite, "lunie"

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: glenn1

And why would we care? As long as we are the superior force within their borders their legal system means diddly squat to us.

Because depending on the action we took, we'd either have to submit to American servicemembers subject to Iraqi prisons and/or executions, or directly intervene in the internal legal affairs of a sovereign state - which would be at best a major international incident, at worst an act of war.
Either course of action would be political suicide for any Administration.

And your point is? 😛

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: - The Iraqis don't have control over our military - just as it should be. Our military is ours - not theirs. We control it - not them. I'm sorry if you think that makes it not "full sovereignty" but IMO that stance is asinine.

CkG

Full Sovereignty would seem to mean that the Iraqi Government would have to agree to the presence of the American troops and under agreed terms. Sovereignty is sorta just that.
I'd like for the folks in Washington to refer to the Iraqi situation using words that correctly denotes the condition under which the ' Iraqi Nation' exists. If this was done then we'd have at least one less thread. 🙂

The Iraqi government does agree.

Therefore it seems that if certain people weren't so deadset on trying to find things to carp about when they really aren't an issue we wouldn't have these threads.

Nite, "lunie"

Well... Etech, this quoted part of the Article would seem to indicate that the proposed Resolution sees the Iraqi Nation as somewhat less than Sovereign or at least wishes it to be so. "But in general it changes little, and ignores France's proposal that Iraq should have a right to say "no" to any major U.S. military operation."
I don't know how a sovereign nation can not have the absolute right to deny foreign intervention in their country.. If they don't they ain't sovereign. Sorta goes with the definition as used by the folks in Washington, though.

Therefore it seems that if certain people weren't so deadset on trying to find things to carp about when they really aren't an issue we wouldn't have these threads.

Are you referring to the people who created the article or us members of the forum? If the latter, I've no comment. If the former, then I'd say that is the nature of a diverse people and the objective media and the subjective press departments of the various agencies etc. Folks have a determining process which allows them to see the same facts differently. I don't know how but, they do. Folks may not agree with the proffered thoughts but, the facts are facts and usually accepted by both sides or all sides. Usually.



"

 

[DealMonkey]

Seems to me that "full sovereignty" means exactly what it means: Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. No one expects Iraq to gain direct control of the U.S. military, however if they do not get a say so on how that military operates within their own borders, it means they really don't have sovereignty.

The Clinton-esque argument about what sovereignty is -- is downright pathetic is what it is. The Bushies should have hedged and just claimed to pass "limited control," since that's what the Iraqis are really getting.

It's amusing to watch the squirming though. It didn't work with Clinton and it's not working now. 😉

 

[Moonbeam]

Doesn't a country whose government you knock off and replace with an unelected new government of your own choosing and which you then insist is going to have to let you continue to be in charge of the occupying force that installed that new vassal state, isn't that a really a new sovereign state since they are completely free to do exactly as they were hand selected to submit to? Isn't a willing slave free? I'm trying to see if I can draw a huge salary if I can let the army live in my house. No really, I want them there.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

I also understand why some of you do not want to compare the degree of sovereignty the Iraqis will have now vs. what they had under Saddam. That's ok. If I was in your position I would want to limit the discussion also.

Under Saddam Iraq was 100% soverengy nation. Well execpt for the no fly zones.

Even more that that. The UN sanctions limited Iraqi sovereignty. Those sanctions and Saddam himself limited the trade that Iraq could hold with neighboring countries. Limited trade means the entire region is economically depressed from what it could be.

 

[owensdj]

US troops in Japan aren't under Japanese command, yet Japan has full sovereignty. US troops in South Korea aren't under South Korean command, yet South Korea has full sovereignty. It will be the same way in Iraq.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: owensdj
US troops in Japan aren't under Japanese command, yet Japan has full sovereignty. US troops in South Korea aren't under South Korean command, yet South Korea has full sovereignty. It will be the same way in Iraq.

So the troops in Japan can go out and shoot people in Japan?
Troops can shoot people in Seoul?

I think not.


If it were the same, I would not have posted about this. The US is so far opposing having to seek Iraqi approval before going out and attacking. It's not as if anyone is saying that the troops can't defend themselves. This is about what troops in a host nation may do. So far there seems to not be much if anything we can't do without permission. That makes the statement of full sovereignty being transferred a lie.

Perhaps that will change before the end of June, but if it does it isn't because we wanted to. It would be a result of pressure from other countries. I am not holding my breath.

 

[geecee]

The United States and Britain pressed U.N. Security Council members to pass swiftly a resolution on Iraq's future but rejected a proposal by France to give Iraq more control over U.S. troops.

I'm all for pulling out US troops, letting France supply their troops, and putting THEM under Iraqi control. That way, everybody wins. 😛

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
If a country cannot have a say in major military ops within it's borders it simply does not have "full sovereignty" which Bush claims.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain pressed U.N. Security Council members to pass swiftly a resolution on Iraq's future but rejected a proposal by France to give Iraq more control over U.S. troops.

Encouraged by a generally receptive attitude, Washington and London want the council to vote on Tuesday on the revised draft -- the fourth in two weeks -- in the hope it will win unanimous support among the 15 council nations.

The new text, distributed on Monday and still under discussion, pledges "close coordination" between U.S.-led international troops and the interim government that takes office on June 30.

But in general it changes little, and ignores France's proposal that Iraq should have a right to say "no" to any major U.S. military operation.

Control of the 160,000 U.S.-led troops in Iraq was the most contentious issue in the draft that would give international endorsement to the interim Iraqi government and authorize a multinational force under American command.

The latest version does strengthen language on Iraq's sovereignty, such as Baghdad's right "to exercise full authority and control over financial and natural resources."

And it tries to accommodate Russia's request for an international conference by saying the Security Council would consider one if Iraq requested it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, visiting Mexico City, praised the draft. "The resolution has already been modified substantially in a positive direction. We have every reason to think that this could culminate in a positive result," he told reporters.

But supporters of France's amendment, particularly Algeria, said they had not given up on negotiations. "The resolution is not final until the last minute, so we hope that we will be able to be -- all of us -- on board," said Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali, the only Arab delegate on the council.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full sovereignty is a lie.

We will not, and should not, give the sovereignty of our troops over to Iraq. Leave it to the effin' French to parody themselves.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
The US should have complete and total command over it's own forces. When the Iraqi's develop there own Army and police and we pullout in the next 12 months they can do whatever they want.

That's not full sovereignty then, is it?

Not at this time. Nor was it said that they would have it come June 30. This is a process. The key word is WILL. The Iraqi's WILL have full sovereignty, but not right now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
The US should have complete and total command over it's own forces. When the Iraqi's develop there own Army and police and we pullout in the next 12 months they can do whatever they want.

That's not full sovereignty then, is it?

Not at this time. Nor was it said that they would have it come June 30. This is a process. The key word is WILL. The Iraqi's WILL have full sovereignty, but not right now.

Bush's speech at the Army War College in Carlisle:

The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections.

That seems at odds with your statement.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
The US should have complete and total command over it's own forces. When the Iraqi's develop there own Army and police and we pullout in the next 12 months they can do whatever they want.

That's not full sovereignty then, is it?

Not at this time. Nor was it said that they would have it come June 30. This is a process. The key word is WILL. The Iraqi's WILL have full sovereignty, but not right now.

Hope you like the taste of your foot:

Transcript From Bush Speech on American Strategy in Iraq

The first of these steps will occur next month when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30, the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.

The June 30 transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs - just as we would.

But keeping our promise on June 30, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government.

 

[Gaard]

I'll give him a few more hours before putting him on the 'list'. 😉

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
The US should have complete and total command over it's own forces. When the Iraqi's develop there own Army and police and we pullout in the next 12 months they can do whatever they want.

That's not full sovereignty then, is it?

Not at this time. Nor was it said that they would have it come June 30. This is a process. The key word is WILL. The Iraqi's WILL have full sovereignty, but not right now.

Hope you like the taste of your foot:

Transcript From Bush Speech on American Strategy in Iraq

The first of these steps will occur next month when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30, the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.

The June 30 transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs - just as we would.

But keeping our promise on June 30, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government.

The point of my post was that it's a ridiculous and dimwitted notion to suggest that we shouldn't maintain troops in Iraq after the government is handed over to the Iraqi's on June 30. It would be like performing a heart transplant without putting the patient in the CCU to guard their progress.

The Iraqi?s will have full control over their government come June 30th. We will be acting as peace-keepers. Within the context of what Winston said, my position stands firm. The Iraqi?s will be ?fully sovereign? when their government is stable. THEN, our troops will pull out, and Iraq will no longer be occupied by the U.S. military. However, it won't happen over night, and it has never been officially stated that we would pull out come June 30

Within the context of what Bush said, the Iraqi?s will have a sovereign government come June 30th. They just won?t be calling the shots for the U.S. military anytime soon. Winston misrepresents, or misconstrues this to mean that the Iraqi?s will NEVER have full sovereignty as long as the U.S. military is there.

As others have said, many countries have had peace keepers within their borders. That does not mean that legally they are not sovereign countries.

IMO, that is just partisan bravo sierra.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: owensdj
US troops in Japan aren't under Japanese command, yet Japan has full sovereignty. US troops in South Korea aren't under South Korean command, yet South Korea has full sovereignty. It will be the same way in Iraq.

It was 7 years after WWII that japan got full control of their goverment...all in time.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
The point of my post was that it's a ridiculous and dimwitted notion to suggest that we shouldn't maintain troops in Iraq after the government is handed over to the Iraqi's on June 30. It would be like performing a heart transplant without putting the patient in the CCU to guard their progress.

The Iraqi?s will have full control over their government come June 30th. We will be acting as peace-keepers. Within the context of what Winston said, my position stands firm. The Iraqi?s will be ?fully sovereign? when their government is stable. THEN, our troops will pull out, and Iraq will no longer be occupied by the U.S. military. However, it won't happen over night, and it has never been officially stated that we would pull out come June 30

Within the context of what Bush said, the Iraqi?s will have a sovereign government come June 30th. They just won?t be calling the shots for the U.S. military anytime soon. Winston misrepresents, or misconstrues this to mean that the Iraqi?s will NEVER have full sovereignty as long as the U.S. military is there.

As others have said, many countries have had peace keepers within their borders. That does not mean that legally they are not sovereign countries.

IMO, that is just partisan bravo sierra.

Your point is moot, since nobody is suggesting that in order for Iraq to be "fully sovereign" the U.S. must pull its troops out. Rather, what everyone is suggesting is that if the newly formed Iraqi government (are we still calling it "provisional?") doesn't have any say in how/where/when military operations are carried out within their own borders, they simply DON'T have full sovereignty.

This whole thing would be solved if the current administration would stop jumping the gun and claiming that the situation in Iraq is something it's not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
The US should have complete and total command over it's own forces. When the Iraqi's develop there own Army and police and we pullout in the next 12 months they can do whatever they want.

That's not full sovereignty then, is it?

Not at this time. Nor was it said that they would have it come June 30. This is a process. The key word is WILL. The Iraqi's WILL have full sovereignty, but not right now.

Hope you like the taste of your foot:

Transcript From Bush Speech on American Strategy in Iraq

The first of these steps will occur next month when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30, the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.

The June 30 transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs - just as we would.

But keeping our promise on June 30, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government.

The point of my post was that it's a ridiculous and dimwitted notion to suggest that we shouldn't maintain troops in Iraq after the government is handed over to the Iraqi's on June 30. It would be like performing a heart transplant without putting the patient in the CCU to guard their progress.

The Iraqi?s will have full control over their government come June 30th. We will be acting as peace-keepers. Within the context of what Winston said, my position stands firm. The Iraqi?s will be ?fully sovereign? when their government is stable. THEN, our troops will pull out, and Iraq will no longer be occupied by the U.S. military. However, it won't happen over night, and it has never been officially stated that we would pull out come June 30

Within the context of what Bush said, the Iraqi?s will have a sovereign government come June 30th. They just won?t be calling the shots for the U.S. military anytime soon. Winston misrepresents, or misconstrues this to mean that the Iraqi?s will NEVER have full sovereignty as long as the U.S. military is there.

As others have said, many countries have had peace keepers within their borders. That does not mean that legally they are not sovereign countries.

IMO, that is just partisan bravo sierra.

I am not sure if you fully appreciate my point. I have understood all along that the Iraqis would not have any true say in how ops are conducted. I understood that this would be a LIMITED transfer of authority. So why is it "fully" Bush brings up? Because it sounds great! Unfortunately it isn't true. I am sick and tired of the exaggeration and misreprentation of this administration which by now far exceeds anything the Clinton's did and I they were the worst at obfuscating since Nixon, so the partisan BS doesn't cut it there.

Bush lied, and continues to lie. I want that to stop. Yeah, I know, good luck.

 

[LunarRay]

Winston,

I am not sure if you fully appreciate my point. I have understood all along that the Iraqis would not have any true say in how ops are conducted. I understood that this would be a LIMITED transfer of authority. So why is it "fully" Bush brings up? Because it sounds great! Unfortunately it isn't true. I am sick and tired of the exaggeration and misreprentation of this administration which by now far exceeds anything the Clinton's did and I they were the worst at obfuscating since Nixon, so the partisan BS doesn't cut it there.

Bush lied, and continues to lie. I want that to stop. Yeah, I know, good luck.

I wonder if the Administration is simply using the words they choose in the hope that the message carried will be one to bring more votes to the right. He'd be easy prey, I think, if he said 'partial sovereignty' cuz it would be like 'partial pregnant' and folks would just laugh at him like they did Ford's balance. To indicate the long term reality puts the issue past November and the left will use that against him too.. I'll bet they decided to use what they used to be able to say the end is near and disregarded the meaning. Now having said that, the left will say ' I though you said.. xyz' and he can respond with something dynamic like " We brought them freedom and many American's fought for them and you quibble about words. Texas is sovereign and they still say the pledge of allegiance to the USA... shouldn't you?" Or something like that.. 😀😀

It is all political and each word has been tested over and over again. They are good at what they do.. They really don't lie cuz they don't really mean what they say.... hehehehhe

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"They really don't lie cuz they don't really mean what they say"


Man o man LR did you hit it right with that.

I am starting to think that these folks would pass a polygraph if they said the world was flat and they knew it wasnt true, just because if they new it to be false that would be true to them.