A 'Sovereign' Iraq? Don't You Believe It

[Manix]

<snip>



Here we go again. The United States is about to fall prey to its own propaganda.

President Bush has repeatedly said we will grant "full and complete sovereignty" to Iraq on June 30. We've said we'll turn over Saddam Hussein for trial and punishment and that the occupation will finally be replaced by Iraqi self-rule. But these grand promises are as unbelievable as they are unattainable.

Already we've begun to qualify some of them: The Iraqis will take "legal" custody of Hussein, it turns out, but the U.S. will continue to hold him physically.

Now imagine what could happen next. Suppose that Iraqi judges and jurors acquit Hussein. Would he be released? Would he be allowed to preside over the re-erection of his statue in Firdos Square? Or to restore his regime?

Of course not, you say, the U.S. will never let that happen. And right you are. Just as we promised that a war in Iraq would result in a secure and democratic Middle East, we are now making a promise of full sovereignty that we are neither willing nor able to make come true.





LA Times

[struggle4progress]

1. "Iraq's only distinction in all this is that ...

... the U.S. plans to grant it much less sovereignty than even weak nations have."

[Miss Authoritiva]

2. A reasonable, temperate piece. And I can't stop laughing.

This is George W. Bush we're talking about here, you know, the popular rich kid elected student council president with the help of nifty posters and banners designed by the PNAC booster club and neocon pep squad.

This really, really in-crowd is never going to "openly acknowledge that sovereignty only exists in varying degrees" or "stop scoffing at the U.N., the International Criminal Court and other international institutions and admit that they should have some jurisdiction over the affairs of nations."

However, they might be willing to send Hussein to The Hague for trial by the ICC, "rather than pretend that (they) are going to turn him over to a wobbly Iraqi judicial system," if the ICC promises not to prosecute certain overly enthusiastic members of the PNAC booster club and neocon pep squad.

[Disturbed]

3. Sovereignty?

Full Sovereignty?

"Throughout the spring, as hundreds died in the spiraling conflict, as Regime bosses applied their hardcore "anti-terrorist" tortures to innocent bystanders raked up in their occupation nets, as Regime mouthpieces prated endlessly of "liberation" and "sovereignty," Bush viceroy Paul Bremer was quietly signing a series of edicts that will give the United States effective control over the military, ministries -- and money -- of any Iraqi government, for years to come, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Bremer has placed U.S.-appointed "commissions" made up of Americans and local puppets throughout Iraqi government agencies; the ministers supposedly in charge weren't even told of the edicts. These boards "will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens," the Journal reports. Any new Iraqi government "will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials.


Earlier Bremer edicts laid the Iraqi economy wide open to ruthless exploitation by Bush-approved foreign "investors"; dominance of such key sectors as banking, communications -- and energy -- is already well advanced. The latest dictates aim to ensure that this organized looting goes on, no matter what kind of makeshift "interim government" the United Nations manage to piece together. Bush's plans to build a Saddamite fortress embassy in Baghdad and 14 permanent military bases around the country are designed to provide the knee-breaking "security" for these lucrative arrangements."



http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/21/120.html


*It's another con job on ignorant Americans who are gullible enough to believe it.

If the Iraqis wanted a retrun of the Baath Pary since they have bveen liberated will the US allow that? Would the Us allow a Shi'ite dominated Govt.? Would the US allow a seperate state for the Kurds?

[Flagius]

4. Seriousely

This is the biggest fucking hoax since the "White House Vandalism" that blowhard Hannity shat forth in January 2001.