who is going to run Iraq after the war? America and Britain disagree

our soldiers blood are freeing it, our country should be able to follow up on what we have done

Britain has a huge number of forces in Iraq too - not sure of the numbers - maybe someone could fill this in.

*** FUCKWIT ***

Would you like to buy a clue?

would you like to elaborate

c'mon Face Ache

show some restraint.

my momma always said the one calling names is the one losing the debate.

hehehe

Now only that, he does have a clue.

Germany? pshaaaaaaw were was they when we needed their help earlier?

Sorry Germany, better keep them troops at bay. You aren't wanted, or needed anymore.

A little too late for that.

You obviously don't seem to understand the contradiction in your own words, which is perhaps what prompted Fache Ache to call you a ****WIT. Let me help you out.

You say the blood of your soldiers is "Freeing" Iraq. You also say your country should then be able to "Follow up on what you have done". That means that you are freeing Iraq in order to control and rule it.

Normally, freeing something or someone does not involve controlling or ruling it. Usually the opposite, in fact.

It does however, show up the opinions of some people in your country who openly support a war of conquest, thinly (very thinly) disguised as a war of liberation.

I wonder what the Iraqi people are going to say about this and how many suicide bombers your nation will take before it decides the costs are too high.

I think it depends on whether George is prepared to lose his only ally in this conflict. The US controlling Iraq (and especially it's resources) on it's own will probably meet with stiff opposition by the UN. The US doesn't seem to think much about the UN and George seems only to lsiten to Blair in mitigating circumstances. IF Blair can convince him to be more open, then perhaps the occupying forces will bugger off soon, otherwise Iraq is going to probaly cost more to occupy than the US can get in barrels of oil.

W R O N G ! And has already been cleared. Old crap.

PB.

I don't see any contradiction. The question is who exercises political authority in the intervening period between the invasion and the handover to a new Iraqi administration, as well as who holds the Iraqi administration's hands through the first few inevitably difficult transition years.

The initial authority is the US/UK. Everyone is agreed about that. They have the boots on the ground. Boots on the ground is always the most basic definition of authority. The US would appear to prefer to keep it that way and to gradually hand power over to a new Iraqi administration, once one has been identified. I am gratified that so far the US has resisted the temptation to just designate the Iraqi National Congress. As attractive as Mr. Chalibi is to the west, he has not lived in Iraq since he was 12. The new administration will have to take account of the views of non-exile Iraqis. But that will take some time to construct and in the mean time, there is other work of a more basic humanitarian nature to do.

The UN will be in Iraq even under those circumstances. In fact, UN relief convoys are already coming in to Iraq from Turkey. But those are UN humanitarian agency convoys. That isn't the same thing as handing political authority over to either the Security Council, or the Secretariat. That is the question that is controversial. Handing over political authority to the UN is not likely to be acceptable to the US because it would hand too much authority to countries that are in opposition to the US (you know who I mean). So that is probably out, which will probably upset Blair's left wing (sorry Claire).

To recap, the two models for political authority are:

US/UK --> Iraq (after a period of transition, a la the experience in Germany and Japan).

US/UK --> UN --> Iraq.

Either way, Iraq ends up with final authority. Thus there is no contradiction.

-The initial authority is the US/UK. Everyone is agreed about that--

I think you miss again the point here. No one has agreed except, well, US and UK (and later one not fully). And about the boots on Iraqi soil - well- thats again a kind of argument, which reminds me of huns' law.

Again, I believe you should understand clearly that using word "freeing" in this context is total ********. Occupational government and occupational forces are best suitable definition. I dont care how much oil US is going to pump out of Iraq feverishly before handing empty wells to Iraqi (joke) or how bushists will run to grab (sorry, privatize) Iraqi oil industry, but it has precious little to do with "freeing".

Uhm, from you own "reputable" source of news, The (London) Telegraph:

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately for Mr Blair, Mr Powell's sentiments are far from shared on the coast of Kuwait. There, Pentagon officials and other Bush administration hardliners have their own plan; one that happily by-passes Mr Powell, Mr Blair, the UN and the European Union. No one in the cream-coloured villas where Iraq's fate is being decided will be making a call to Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, or Dominique de Villepin, his French counterpart, anytime soon. In the words of one senior UN diplomat, speaking after a recent meeting with administration officials: "What do the American hawks want to control? As of now, everything."

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

I'm sure you're going to reply that either the paper is unreputable, in which case you'ld be contradicting a post of your's in another thread, or else you're going to say that of course this is "just" reporting and everything will turn out just right in the end. Which it will, for the fat bastards in power in the Pentagon and their scum buddies in big business. And who will the real losers be yet once again?: The Iraqi people, the ones you're claiming to be freeing.

The article is exactly consistant with what I said. The administration prefers US/UK political control without UN political authority. You are the one adding the editorial comment about "fat bastards in power in the Pentagon and their scum buddies in big business." I'm pretty sure the Torygraph wouldn't write that.

Truly ****ing amazing how you can't read when it suits you.

Truly amazing that you can't make an argument without swearing.

It's the frustration with people like you who contradict themselves and are too low of character to admit it when proven wrong.

You are 39, right? Watch you don't have a heart attack by the time you are 50. you seem to have a fit every time someone diesagrees with you.

And how exactly have I been "proven wrong?" All any of us can do at this point is speculate. Come back in 10 to 20 years and we can talk about who was proven wrong.

So, you really can't admit, not even once, that you made a mistake? You are a fine character. You'll constantly correct others with "informed" and "reputable" sources of yours, yet when the same "reputable" sources post something that doesn't fit in with your thinking, then you have to go and twist it again.

I don't understand why you can never admit you make mistakes. Perhaps it's your character, perhaps it's your job. I don't know. But it does discredit your reputation, as does resorting to juvenile posts in order to avoid facing the above.

I don't think that article did contradict what I said. That's your interpretation. What I saw was a journalist's take on a developing situation and his speculation on who has the upper hand in the White House today. To that you added your editorial comments about fat people in the Pentagon and big business. Is it possible that your hatred for the people that you perceive as running the show colors the way you read the news? I think it is.

To explain: What the article is talking about is the debate currently raging over what to do with Iraqi administration in the short run. Basically, whether to hand administration over to the UN or not for administration in the next year or two. Comments about retaiing control with the coaltion are also only talking about that same period. You seem to be be assuming, based on your world-view, that such comments mean that control will never be handed over to the Iraqis as the US and UK have both promised it will. Now, just because I don't share your world-view does not mean I owe you an apology. When I am wrong in a fact, i have no problem admitting it. But my world-view is my own opinion and I think in time it will probably be borne out by the facts on the ground.

As for juvinile posts, when you start your tirades i do tend to tune out. It is amusing though when you start typing "Rum****" and so on as you often are prone to doing. I suppose I should start using "Chiraq" as a response? Wouldn't that be mature?

SimeyLimey, I am sure that at age of 20 you were mature enough and already were planning your own funeral. So why you spend time here, discussing things, which dont suit your little nice star-striped world , and try to look cool, when slapped in face by facts and photos and try to keep that "nothing happened" face, looking like a circus clown, and trying to deny undeniable? Recently you have been too emotional and tend to tune out too easy. Maybe because your posts dont have any essense to validate your posts or you ran out of arguments of cold war era? Seems immature enough for me, summarized. Well, keep trying, we need someone on bushist side, after all.

Speaking of immature...

ok, whether you see my words as a contradiction or not is pointless. my words may not be typed the way i originally thought them, but anyways.

reguardless, its our citizens families and friends that are putting their lives on the line to free iraq, or better put, to get saddam and his henchmen from power.

so would a smart person go through such a feat and risk those civilian lives (which each and everyone is felt like it is our own family member) and then simply trust others to finish the easy work? especially those that have questionable past dealings? i think we are a little smarter than you may think you are. if you want things done right, you are better off to do them yourself

its funny that the second you mention this i began to think that you just think we are doing it for monetary purposes. then i realize that thats the only reason others are bitching. you all like to say we just want to line our pockets, but by saying so, you are also saying the same.

just because the US once again, chose a path and is following it. and unfortunately those that we're not of any help before, are not going to be our right hand man now.

Geeez.

Somebody call the coroner.

Tell him to bring a bus.

There are piles and piles of peaceniks on the ground.

They've all been bitchslapped.

Please, folks

Let the peaceniks get back on their feet before you slap 'em back down.

They last a bit longer that way....besides, it's the courteous thing to do.

I have been reading, and I have yet to see you prove him wrong. Just a lot of chest pounding.

my thoughts exactly

It means that the US/UK is in the early stages of implementing their plan to establish a government in Iraq that is served by and represents the people of Iraq.

The last thing they want is for these plans to become sabotaged through inefficient, neverending 'diplomacy' due to France's desire to wage global public relations battles.