Dodgy-deals-r-us.com gears up for June 30.

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Let the scamming begin.
icon_smile.gif



Funny how they can parcel up Iraq with a neat little bow in 75 days and can't do diddly shit with Palestine in 30 years.

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

There is, as yet, no clearly defined role for the UN after the handover.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he is seeking a new UN resolution to ensure the handover of power in Iraq on 30 June.

Mr Annan said that divisions in the international community caused by the Iraq war were "beginning to heal", adding that he was hoping for the full co-operation of member states over a new resolution.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3623653.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3628025.stm
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
The 'new order 1.0'.
icon_biggrin.gif


The American administrator, Paul Bremer, will disappear, but the troops will stay and US commanders will control not only them but the soldiers of the new Iraqi army.

Washington will be in charge of the bulk of the aid money, and has put laws in place to ensure that its economic and other interests are protected.

And UN acceptance legitimises the heist...
Only the darn locals to worry about now.

Watch this space.
Tick tok tick tok

--------------------------------------
US warms to UN plan for Iraq

Senior American officials have welcomed ideas put forward by the United Nations envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, for a caretaker government to take over from the US civil administration at the end of June.

Brahimi: Expected to finalise the plan next month
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has been pushing for greater UN involvement in Iraq; and his call for a new Security Council resolution is also getting a positive reception in Washington.

The new mood has a lot to do with the violent resistance American troops have been encountering from both Sunni and Shia militants.

The idea that the UN might help get the occupation out of a hole is increasingly attractive.

The Bush administration has made several proposals for setting up a transitional Iraqi government over the past few months, only to be forced to abandon them - usually by objections from clerics speaking for the Shia majority.

Now, both the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, have spoken positively about Mr Brahimi's ideas, while stressing that many points have to be finalised.

New institutions

According to initial reports, he is suggesting a caretaker government led by a prime minister - the key figure - with a presidential council of three.

He has also supported the idea of convening a national conference to choose a consultative assembly (Majlis ash-Shura) to serve alongside the government until elections can be held.

The proposals are almost identical to those outlined last month by senior British officials dealing with Iraq.

The Bush administration seems prepared to concede some control of the political process to the UN


The difference is that Mr Brahimi is apparently proposing that the UN should actually appoint the caretaker government after consulting the United States and Iraqi leaders, and that the existing Governing Council created by the Americans should be formally dissolved.

American and British officials have referred to the danger of prominent Iraqis on the Council competing for the big jobs or even trying to sabotage the exercise.

Even if agreement is reached, it is questionable how much real power the new, supposedly sovereign government will have.

The American administrator, Paul Bremer, will disappear, but the troops will stay and US commanders will control not only them but the soldiers of the new Iraqi army.

Washington will be in charge of the bulk of the aid money, and has put laws in place to ensure that its economic and other interests are protected.

All the same, the Bush administration seems prepared to concede some control of the political process to the UN. Until recently it was dismissive of the whole idea.

Burden shared

The shift is certainly welcome to Tony Blair - as is President Bush's explicit support this week for a new Security Council resolution.

It is not that Mr Bush wants the UN to take the lead, rather that he thinks a resolution will encourage more countries to send troops to Iraq and reduce the burden on the United States.


UN involvement could persuade Spain not to pull out its troops
At the least, he and Mr Blair hope that it will persuade the new Spanish government not to withdraw its contingent and steady the nerves of others who may be having second thoughts.

A Security Council resolution would give new authorisation to a multinational force, still under American command but in a form more acceptable to international opinion.

But in return for that, the big powers opposed to the war will want to see exactly what concessions the United States is willing to make on a substantial role for the UN.

The resolution would spell out that role and approve the political process.

Security fears

Mr Brahimi is not expected to finalise his plan until next month, assuming he can secure a consensus among the Iraqi factions.

A resolution can be agreed only when it is clear what powers the Americans will hand over and to whom.

Mr Blair spoke of a common purpose, and agreement on the goal of creating a stable and democratic Iraq. But he admitted that how to get there was the difficult issue.

There are all kinds of hurdles to be cleared.

Most crucial is the question of whether security can be improved to a degree that allows the UN to work in Iraq at all.

The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, clearly has doubts about the conditions, and Mr Brahimi was not able to travel around the country.

It was violent attacks on the UN that forced it out of Iraq last year.

On the other hand, if the UN does not take a hand in promoting political progress, the chances of the violence subsiding are less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3632585.stm
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Eek - I don't get it? The US fought the war; the US won the war; so why shouldn't the US oversee the spending of the post war goodies.

The French sure as hell don't deserve anything besides a nice loud rasberry!

So what are you grieving about?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
So keep Iraq for yourself. And have fun.
Its your party.

Leave the UN out of it, like you did when you invaded.

Why should the rest of us help you clean up your stinking mess?
(especially since it was avoidable, and you were well warned)
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Eek: I totally share your sentiments. Question for you --- in listening to the Bushmeister the other night he mentions how he's 'disappointed' with how well the Iraqi people have learned to be combatant soldiers. I had heard that previously on CNN as well. I'm a being a little over the top to make an immediate correlation to Panama when the local army was deemed 'ineffective' when in fact there had been an agreement in place that they were not to build one at all? I am wondering if I am alone in my thinking that the US will build the Iraqis up, in the mind of the American public, to be incompetent in their own defense, thereby granting a 'much needed' US-led army in Iraq. After all, this is the same media-manipulated stunt his daddy pulled ....
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
I think that the US military is stuck there until they decide that a form of Islamic revolution in Iraq is an acceptable option.
Everything else is fluff, including UN 'fixes'.
(The powers that be won't tell us THAT though
icon_smile.gif
)

War only delays the inevitable progression of society.
In the middle east, society is gravitating towards Islamic systems, plus a big chunk of Southern Iraq is connected to Iran.

----------------------------------------
In the short term, it is to the Iraqis advantage to keep the country in chaos.
Not just for political reasons, but to prevent the place being economically raped by the US and the international banking system.
The only real asset they have is oil.

With stability, it would be siphoned offshore, and the $$'s paying for it would never see the coast of Iraq.
Those $$'s would go towards debt repayment and war reparations in the international system.

American involvement is a lose/lose scenario for Iraqis.
Even the economic aid is pathetic.
Half a billion in year 1 (to June 2004)
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Bremer says Iraq troops not ready


The US says local Iraqi forces cannot quell the violence alone
The US administrator in Iraq has said Iraqi security forces will not be able to protect the country by the 30 June deadline for handing power to Iraqis.
Paul Bremer said recent attacks by insurgents showed Iraq needed help to deal with continuing security threats.

But Spain's new prime minister has said he wants Spain's troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible".

Soon after the announcement, radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr told followers to stop attacking Spanish troops.

The US has said it is prepared for other coalition members to reassess their role in the country.

Washington's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said: "I think there are going to be some changes."

Embassy attack

The US-led forces in Iraq said the situation in the country was the quietest for weeks, although a tense stand-off is continuing in the holy city of Najaf between US forces and supporters of radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr.

In the capital, Baghdad, the coalition has closed various sections of highways connecting Baghdad from the north, west and south "until Iraqi engineers and coalition forces can repair them".

According to a statement from the US Central Command: "The safety and security for public travel is the primary reason for the closures."

HAVE YOUR SAY
I am disappointed that Spain is withdrawing its troops but in equal measure I do not blame it for doing so

BP, Crawley, UK


Send us your comments

Nada Doumani, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Iraq, told BBC News Online the closures had caused huge traffic jams in the city.

On Monday, a mortar reportedly landed in the grounds of the Swedish embassy in the capital.

Police have said no-one was injured in the attack.

The embassy has been closed since 1991, but is guarded by an Iraqi caretaker.

Popular support

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he had decided to recall the 1,300 Spanish soldiers based in Iraq, because he could not ignore what he called the will of the Spanish people.


MAIN FOREIGN TROOPS IN IRAQ
US: 135,000
UK: 8,700
Italy: 3,000
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Spain: 1,300
Australia: 850
Japan: 550
Spain's foreign minister told his Egyptian counterpart the pull-out would be "within 15 days", the Egyptian foreign ministry said in a statement.

The BBC's Katya Adler in Madrid says military sources there say the pull-out is more likely to take one or two months because of operational requirements.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said the US expected Spain to "implement their decision in a co-ordinated, responsible and orderly manner".


The US earlier condemned the decision, saying it was giving in to terrorism.

The BBC's Dominic Hughes in Baghdad says that with the US saying it needs thousands of extra troops on the ground in Iraq, the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will clearly be felt.

Speaking on ABC's This Week programme, before Madrid announced its decision, Ms Rice said: "We know that there are others who are going to have to assess how they see the risk."

"We have 34 countries with forces on the ground. I think there are going to be some changes."

Domino effect

The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington says that the US had been expecting the Spanish decision and therefore its response has been markedly low-key.


The true impact of Spain's withdrawal will be political not military
Militarily, the loss of 1,300 troops is not too much of a problem, our correspondent says - much more damaging will be the political fallout.

The loss of any member will put a dent in President George W Bush's image of the "coalition of the willing" and will create concerns of a possible domino effect among other countries with troops stationed in Iraq, he says.

There have been media reports that Portugal could soon follow Spain and it is already known that Kazakhstan will not be replenishing its troop contingent when its soldiers finish their current tour of duty in Iraq.

But although this and other setbacks, such as the spiralling hostage crisis and mounting number of US deaths in Iraq, will have taken their toll on US public opinion, our correspondent believes that the White House will remain resolute in its plan to stay the course in Iraq.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3638001.stm
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,214
Messages
13,565,510
Members
100,768
Latest member
cluon4073
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com