This is great news for the Iraqi people and the Bush Administration, doncha think?
U.N. Endorses Iraq Sovereignty Transfer
Where are the discussions of hope and a new and free democratic Iraq? Can Dems still says there is no internation support? Or is this just another LIE put forth by the evil Bush Administration?
Even Aljazeera , in an incredibly short article, mentioned the positive reality of Iraqs’ future.
So what do you all think. A turning point?
-LC
Who’s ponying up bucks and troops?
Note that the resolution got support only after it was agreed that Iraqi leaders would get control over their security forces, as well as input on “sensitive offensive operations” – which was something Bush didn’t want to give them in the first place. I can only guess the fear of losing re-election finally managed to spook him into some sembalance of international cooperation.
The mutlinational forces. What’s your point?
-LC
I wrote about this in a thread in the BBQ Pit . I felt very happy on hearing this news. I thought the situation was beyond control and un-salvageable but now I feel “cautiously optimistic”.
This could be a turning point.
The criticism of Bush has always been that he acted unilaterally. That was a mistake. Obviously, any move towards multinationalism is better than none at all. This hardly vindicates Bush, though.
Quite - it vindicates the critics. Just think how much better things might have been if they were listened to earlier.
For those interested, you might want to know how some of the effected parties view the situation. In short, the Kurds are extremely upset with the resolution, and it appears that Sistani had a hand in how the UN resolution was finally accepted.
See the following:
UN Resolution Passes Unanimously - Sistani the Big Winner; Kurds Furious
UN Security Council Vote expected Tuesday; Sistani Weighs in Against Interim Constitution
Note also that it was a process of negotiations. At the inception of negotiations it is quite common for both sides to assume extremely unreconcilable positions and then work it out to an ucceptable middle ground. Thus Bush claimed complete US control, while UN demanded such ridiculous things as subordination of US occupying force to the Iraq new gov’t. Eventually they worked out a sensible agreement.
If the critics were “listened to earlier” there would be no invasion, no ousting of Saddam and therefore no sovereignity transfer for UN to endorse.
15-0 UN resolution for Iraq new gov’t is unequivocal endorsement of Bush decision to take Saddam out. The real and only turning point was the day of invasion.
Cite for this if you please.
True enough. Osama might also be in custody. Eight hundred plus good Americans would still be alive, too, and so would unknown thousands of ordinary Iraqis. But that can no lo
Total bullshit. It’s a recognition that US occupation of Iraq is a current fact. It’s making the best of a bad situation, hardly an endorsement of the actions that made it that way.
And failing that it might have been done properly, with some sort of plan for the occupation more substantive than the smoke Iran spy Chabili blew up the neo-con’s receptive asses.
Hilarious. For starters, an unequivocal endorsement would flat out say so, as in “Boy, we all really think the invasion of Iraq was a swell idea!” Care to point out the relevent passage that so states?
You might as well claim the resolution in question ringingly endorses Hydrox cookies over Oreos.
The resolution endorses a plan to get us all out of this horrendous stinking mess. As such, it is likely the triumph of optimism over experience. But to agree on a plan to rebuild a burned out building is not the same as congratulating the arsonist on a job well done.
It’s called Categorical Syllogism.
Major premise: No new Iraq gov’t without Saddam removal.
Minor premise: No Saddam removal without Bush invasion.
Conclusion: UN unanimous approval of new Iraq gov’t = UN unanimous approval of Bush invasion.
I really must keep up with current events. I had no idea that the rules of formal logic had been updated to reflect post-modernist irony.
What? No! No. I reject your minor premise on the grounds that Saddam’s removal could have been achieved by a number of means. Secondly, even if we accepted it, this structure only holds true if the UN had approved the new government before the invasion. It’s not as if they can turn back time. Bush already invaded.
How would they vote to show disapproval of the invasion, hypothetically? Would they vote against establishing a new government that will ultimately get the US forces back out of the country? Perhaps you think that the world leaders would, if they were opposed to the invasion, demand Saddam back on the throne?
The fact this resolution passed 15-0 is a no-brainer.
Yeah, that’s SO ridiculous that when we say we are transferring sovereignty, they would expect us to actually do so.:rolleyes:
Since when have the neo-cons used logic?
Sure, by any number of means, all hypothetical and theoretical. Also, as ElvisL1ves said, we might have caught Osama instead (except that we might have killed him long ago), might not lost 800+ US soldiers (except those that might have died chasing Osama) and thousands of Iraq civilians (except those who’d die as a result of continuing sanctions).
They didn’t have to recognize Iraq new “puppet” gov’t, have they?