Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation'

I had said a long time ago that the UN should play a much bigger role in the affairs of Iraq but I'm just wondering, I guess, how it will prove it's relevancy to me now. I guess you cant call Americans spineless if they see the UN without a backbone. If the UN cannot call the U.S. to account then what friggin chance have we.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Give us what we want or we'll ignore you, and we'll punish you if we can". That's it. For Cheney/Bush, THAT is the whole of the law - any law, anywhere. One way or another, they own every agency that might bring them to justice, or give us or anyone else they're involved with justice.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're right that I do not find information of this quality elsewhere. The separatist/nationalist divide is clearly documented in this piece. It makes sense of what has happened and warns of what is likely to happen. Readers can't ask for more than that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Raed and I have a few more words on the subject over in PEEK. It's a bonus track!

Also, if you think this story should be seen by a wider audience, please digg it, or refer it to any of the other media social-network sites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bush presidency including the Iraq war requires daily
homework. I've managed to stay on top of things but I can understand why others cannot or will not. Oh, you're right but sadly not alot of people know that. Not beause they're stupid, but because everything American is chaotic and designed not to be easily understood. That way our leader gets decide what's best for us because we don't know. This state of affairs is not an accident. Good article. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CheneyInc will stall and stall and stall. and then finally set a date for a "firm maybe" to leave, and then, almost before the ink is dry on the agreement, will decide that the negotiated date is "premature" and needs further negotiation toward setting a "firmer maybe" date; which negotiations must take place after the "firm maybe" date, because anything else would be premature, especially withdrawal.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very good political insight re Iraq today. Nationalist vs. Separatist- or the Congress vs. the Presidency - has caused war and internal strife in both countries: Iraq and US.
In both countries the people suffer for the greater good of special interests who care nothing about the people.
The 21st century marks the reign of ideologues; and perhaps a different spelling to better convey the real meaning: idiot-ologues.
IM
Beltshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By definition, a Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of the legislature. Why haven't they removed him?

Something is going on that you haven't covered. Granted, this is probably a whole article in itself, but surely it should be reported.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the Council had Ministers had said the hydrocarbon law was reality despite the opposition of Parliament, what would have happened?

Get this:
Analysis: U.S. OK's Saddam law oil deals, Oct 31 2007

BEN LANDO
UPI Energy Editor
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- The U.S. State Department says an oil law implemented under Saddam Hussein is good enough for Iraq’s national government to sign oil deals, though it would prefer a new national law -- mired in controversy and far from approved -- to be used instead. . .

'We would prefer these laws to be passed before any deals are signed," Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Lawrence Butler told United Press International. "However, in the absence of passage of the hydrocarbon law, Iraq as a sovereign state can continue to use the Saddam-era laws to manage the sector in the meantime."

The U.S. under the guidance of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld engaged in an aggressive war against another country on false pretenses in order to seize control of of their massive oilfields as well as to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East. This was all done primarily for the benefit of Wall Street and London traders and investment bankers - otherwise known as Bush's base.

As that article shows, all the talk about democracy and freedom is just vile propaganda that masks the real agenda in Iraq - one that many Congressmembers are all too willing to go along with, as long as they are assured of fat campaign contributions in the next election cycle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...or at best, that the very notion of an "Iraqi nationalist" was a fantasy of the Bush administration itself - not of its opponents.

Joshua & Raed may finally be sorting all this out for me. It starts to make sense that Iraqi nationalists would arise from this occupation! (Even if there weren't any before.)

How else are they gonna get rid of us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is something additional that might help people who really want to understand something about what is going on in Iraq.

I have the impression that a lot of Americans think that the removal of Saddam Hussein unleashed all kinds of ancient sectarian hatreds among people who have detested each other for centuries and never wanted to live together, and that suddenly the entire population of the country is fighting a civil war based on these ancient hatreds that permeate the entire society. Not one aspect of that idea is accurate.

First and most important, please understand that only a minuscule fraction of Iraqis are involved in fighting a civil war or in any other kind of conflict with other Iraqis. The overwhelming majority of the people want no part of it, and are only involved as unwilling victims.

In addition, as I have said before, going back as many millennia in time as you like, you will find no history in Iraq of serious, protracted, or widespread sectarian or ethnic-based civil conflict. You will find instances of government repression and oppression of this group or that, but the basis for the oppression is always opposition to the ruling party or government, not some kind of ancient sectarian hatred, and does not result in conflict within the society, but remains as government repression of opposition. It is fascinating how many Americans will vehemently dispute this statement without offering a single historic example to refute it. It is as if for some bizarre reason they are desperate to believe without question what they have been told.

It is certainly true, and completely inevitable, that the existence of death squads who hunt down and kill people from one or the other religious or ethnic group has caused a significant amount of distrust among Iraqis of different religions and ethnicities. It is impossible to imagine a society, no matter how unified, in which that would not happen. It is also true that once those pressures are removed Iraqis very quickly return to their old habits of ignoring sect and ethnicity in their interactions and their formation of relationships. This is very obvious in the refugee communities outside the country.

It is also a fact that Iraqis of different sects and ethnicities have found ways to cooperate in developing survival strategies inside the country. One example is the practice of families exchanging homes, something that has grown into a lively business for a number of brokers who will bring two families, typically one Sunni and one Shi`a, together, and assist them with the legal and practical arrangements. In this way a Sunni family living in a neighborhood where they are threatened by Shi`a militias can move into the home of a Shi`a family that is threatened by Sunni militias, and vice versa. The agreement is that at the end of the conflict each family will return to its own home, and in this way each family helps the other to survive the ongoing catastrophe without having to abandon their home.

I hope this has helped to clarify the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best yet, makes it plain and sharable. Thanx. Will digg it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]