Power transfer in Iraq

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:19 am

Things are going to get interesting now. I'd like to know when the Iraqi interim govt takes over the handling of security, namely the punishment side of things. The 'normal' crime and punishment system these people are used to include tongues getting cut off, hanging in the town square, people getting put in plastic shredders, etc. When the new Iraqi govt takes over the justice system, there will be thousands of insurgents and foreign fighters just wishing they were in Abu Graihb being humiliated instead of what they will get from the Iraqis.

>>Allawi delivered a sweeping speech sketching out some of his goals for the country, urging people not to be afraid of the "outlaws" fighting against "Islam and Muslims," assuring them that "God is with us."
"I warn the forces of terror once again," he said "We will not forget who stood with us and against us in this crisis." <<

by **cashcow** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:53 am

*Estimates how long it will take for someone to come in suggesting we nuke the Middle-East*

This government isn't really going to have much power. I don't think the Iraqis are going to be very happy with it either, as we selected their leaders.

Waiting on next year's elections now.

by **-HaVoC-** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:59 am

What I want to know is how humiliating someone warrants and is equal to sawing someones head off and taping it?

FKING savages.

by **Mighty Mazz** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:30 am

Well the waits over. Iraq is now in charge of it's own stuff.

48 hrs ahead of schedule too. I think that was a smart move.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:18 am

This was pretty clever.

I wonder what all those insurgents are going to do with all the "social activities" they had planned for the next few days.

Gotta give Kudoes to Bush's administration for this. Smart move.

by **King** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:42 am

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
This was pretty clever.

I wonder what all those insurgents are going to do with all the "social activities" they had planned for the next few days.

Gotta give Kudoes to Bush's administration for this. Smart move.

I dunno, tell that to all the soldiers families who died over there... the region is just as hostile as ever. Wait five years and see if the decision to even go over there was the right one.

by **JimmyTango** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:55 am

Gee, a 2 day early transfer of power, right when he happens to be in the area trying to drum up more support.

Smart as a political move, but means little in reality. We are still occupying that country, and there are those that resent it and will continue to attack us and take hostages wanting demands met.

by **Mighty Mazz** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:10 pm

You know what might reduce these kidnapings and subsequent beheadings is if the media were to not give them any air time. These kidnapers are only trying to stir things up and the media (in my view) helps them accomplish this.

by **RCglider** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:20 pm

Originally posted by Kingofbeers
I dunno, tell that to all the soldiers families who died over there... the region is just as hostile as ever. Wait five years and see if the decision to even go over there was the right one.

There is nothing profound about what's going on. There were "insurgents" (terrorists) after WW2 and the same attitudes were prevalent. In fact, conditions were much worse by comparison.

by **Jim0322** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:23 pm

The primary reason it was done two days early was to prevent the violence that would occur to coincide with the transfer. I sure there were bombings and other violent acts planned for the day. It also eliminated the bad press associated with such violence.

My 2c.
Jim

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:05 pm

The primary reason it was done two days early was to prevent the violence that would occur to coincide with the transfer. I sure there were bombings and other violent acts planned for the day. It also eliminated the bad press associated with such violence.

Exactly what i meant, Thanks Jim0322

by **King** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:34 pm

i guess the heads of those captured wont get cut off then... great thinking. I really hope they don't but i dont think a power transfer of someone those guerillas never wanted in command of that country is going to stop them from their plans. Transfer or no transfer its going to happen, the bombs will go off, and people will die. But at least we can wash away the blood from our hands saying, "hey, Iraq has a gov't now."

Avoid bad press?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.main/index.html

Tell that to this guy's family. This news should be bad enough for any american.

by **Pierce** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:23 pm

Better to go in and kill Saddam I say. I just think the consequences would have been worse had we not gone to war.

by **King** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:04 pm

Bush also devoted over 50% of the nations cruise missle and bunker-busting missles to "his" war on terror. The whole "shock and awe" plan was a joke, it didn't shock or awe anyone except the weak and ill-equiped iraqi military. The whole world stood by save-few and watched us take over a country.

I watched almost every single address that Colin Powell, President Bush, and Tony Blair made to the U.N. to ratify an Ammendment for the U.N. to go to war... namely the topics under disscussion were the weapons of mass distruction. Powell eloquently spoke and provided examples of the regime's chemical and biological weapons programs that produced the threat to the United States and to the rest of the world.

Flash forward about 1 1/2 years.

The military is continuing to spend lives, American lives protecting a country that we invaded, took over, placed a puppet government in... Iraq is free! Iraq is free!!!!

People use the same trick to hide the card they don't want you to see... they showed it to you in the beggining, and ask you to find it in the end... slight of hand... we've all been duped. No weapons of mass destruction, save a few uranium tainted shells that date from the Iran-Iraq war era.

I actually took the time to write my Congressman, A MR. Todd Akin. Along the lines of his letter he said "the real culprit behind our inablity to find the WMD's was the fact that between the years 1991-1997 the CIA stations overseas was reduced by 33 percent." Now between 1997-2001 were the CIA stations increased? He didn't say a damn thing about that.

Now my point to all of this is: if congress is sending letters out (because most likely its a form letter sent to all who don't support the war) then why are we attacking a country without enough evidence to support.... and i mean REALLY support everyone's suspiscion of the WMD program that the former Iraqi gov't had?

Passing the buck with a dirty hand and blaming it on fomer Presidents instead of owning up to the simple fact that the war on terror went askew ever since we took our attention off of Osama bin Laden and placed it on Saddam Hussein. I don't remember hearing anything out of Hussein except for his support for the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden of course funded the whole damn thing. Yet, he's still running around.

Now tell me why is that? The guy who was behind the greatest terror event in recent history, is still running around, still gathering support for his "jihad" on any and every American in the world.

The only thing we've done is created a magnet. A huge anti-american magnet where people can get together, create mayhem against americans, british, and any other country's people who are helping in the rebuiling process. Rebuiling on account of the United States.

Fantastic, Iraq is free. At least $90 billion dollars spent initially on the "war on iraqi freedom" 90 billion spent on a 51st state. we've stirred up the hornets nest.

by **Pierce** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:10 pm

I certainly wouldn't want to sit back and watch Saddam and Bin Laden build up more attacks against us in his nice presidential palace's though, that's for sure.

Power transfer in Iraq

Power transfer in Iraq

Who is online