Iraq: Full sovereignty after 30 June?

ariyamusafir

read that


[quote]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/ ... F5-6FFD8C8C256C.htm

Iraq: Full sovereignty after 30 June?


By Ahmed Janabi  

Friday 04 June 2004, 17:52 Makka Time, 14:52 GMT  


The definition of the term "sovereignty" has always been controversial in political science.

But as the 30 June handover of power to an interim Iraqi government draws closer, the definition itself may become a source of contention and disagreement.

In a nutshell, domestic sovereignty refers to the power and authority of the state, exercised through its legal representatives, over all persons, things and territory within its reach.

Externally, sovereignty means independence that is the right of the state, within the limits permitted by international law, to conduct its own affairs without direction, interference or control by any state or international organisation.

The Oxford Dictionary defines sovereignty as supremacy, self-government, and/or self-governing State.

These definitions, by and of themselves, imply a number of rights, such as supreme power, ability to pass laws, and independence.

However, many believe that the term has ceased to convey its traditional meaning, and increasingly has taken on a much weaker definition that suits the current international environment.

No legal basis

Tony Benn, a former Labour member of the UK parliament and anti-Iraq war activist, told Aljazeera.net that what the US is trying to do in Iraq is "complete fraud".

"Sovereignty is to enjoy absolute power in your country. A government was appointed, the Americans intend to stay and they have built 10 or 12 bases, laws which allow the privatisation of Iraqi assets and the export of profits, so I think it is a complete fraud,

Seraphim

US better dont leave Iraq that hasty...the moment US remove their presense, there'll be chaos there..Most probably the Iraqis will be killing themselves...

Debmey

I don't support full sovereinty cos it will destroy Iraq. Do it gradually.
Even the Iraqis themselves understood this and do not want full soveriegnty yet.

vixen

That's true.Too many Saddam loyalists in there.

They may used the term full sovereignty to describe how it conducts its own affairs without direction, interference or control by any state or international organisation in Iraq as if iraqis are not capable to handle the country by themselves without USA. whatever the term is I still want to see  the US troops to go back with one way ticket  to where they should belong. Even if there are many Saddam loyalists still around but he has no power to bring back his past glory and iraqis have their choice to select their country leader. Iraqis need the real leader who can make everyone in iraq happy not the one who is puppetted by US govt who can create chaos and unsatisfactory to his people!

[ Last edited by WICKED on 10-6-2004 at 11:13 AM ]

I agree that the new Iraqi government should be accorded full sovereignty, but I doubt it will be given.

Full sovereignty does not have to mean that US and other troops should leave the country, but their role should be just for safekeeping, under the auspices of the United Nations.

So, I agree that there should be full sovereignty, in every sense of the word.

Ariya, the poll title here is a bit ambiguous. Are you asking forum members whether they think the new govt will be accorded full sovereignty come 30 June or are you asking whether we think the new govt (sponsored by the US) should be given full sovereignty?

Therefore I have not voted yet until I read your clarification. Thanks.

Meanwhile, lets read this:

Iraq Sovereignty - A Rope of Sand

The June 30th date set by the Bush administration for passing "sovereignty" to Iraq is more for show than the actual passing of anything other than the buck. Providing the Iraqi people a rope of sand is not helping them now. The war on Iraq started with lies and it appears that some are trying to end it with lies. There is no substance at either end. If it does not start right you cannot expect it to end right. The war was the first major misstep as it departed from American tradition, the War Powers Act, and hundreds of years of doctrine for "just" wars. The Iraq war has destroyed American credibility around the world and now, when trust is most needed for a solution to violence which is spiraling out of control in Iraq, American has none.  


http://www.themoderntribune.com/ ... _bush_liar_lies.htm

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 10-6-2004 at 10:43 AM ]

I agree with your opinion Kennkid and still waiting for  ariya to clarify that matter before i make my vote.

Originally posted by KENNKID at 10-6-2004 10:41 AM:
I agree that the new Iraqi government should be accorded full sovereignty, but I doubt it will be given.

Full sovereignty does not have to mean that US ...

I don't think the US will give full sovreingty to their own puppet govt. In the first place everybody chosen in the new govt are appointed and approved by US, more like US representative in Iraq than anything else.Now that the whole world is against US-Bush action in Iraq, including in US itself, bush will try his best to show that he is giving full sovereignty ( to save face) but at the same time he won't want to lose as his first intention is different. He and his govt must get some benefit from it, big big benefit, otherwise so much American taxpayer money has been spent for nothing. U all believe that the US govt will do something for nothing???  No way man. The US is in a state of embarrasment now.  The best thing the american public  can do is kick Bush out in November. Then they will have to choose kerry who may be as stupid as bush we don't know. US going downhill

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by Seraphim at 10-6-2004 07:13:
US better dont leave Iraq that hasty...the moment US remove their presense, there'll be chaos there..Most probably the Iraqis will be killing themselves...

Eh, you think what ar. After US leave, the situation will not be so bad in Iraq. The reason there is so much killing now is because they don't want those American Imperialist cum Terrorist be in Iraqi soil. They are resisting, they are resistance fighters. Obviously you are supporting US Imperialism.

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by KENNKID at 10-6-2004 10:41:
I agree that the new Iraqi government should be accorded full sovereignty, but I doubt it will be given.

Full sovereignty does not have to mean that US ...

The question would be, do you think this June 30 Iraq will be given full soverignity as what the article wrote about Bush saying or is it just saying so but not real full soverign. Agree means agree with that Iraq will be a full soverign state according to US but disagree means that so called US giving back the so called full soverignity is not full soverignity but just trying to save themselves from their troubles but they will still impose indirect control.

[ Last edited by ariyamusafir on 10-6-2004 at 12:57 PM ]

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by AGG^^IE at 10-6-2004 10:57:


I don't think the US will give full sovreingty to their own puppet govt. In the first place everybody chosen in the new govt are appointed and approved by US, more like US representative in Ira ...

Very well said comrade, very well said.:setuju::setuju::setuju::setuju::setuju::setuju::setuju:

Originally posted by ariyamusafir at 2004-6-10 12:56 PM:


The question would be, do you think this June 30 Iraq will be given full soverignity as what the article wrote about Bush saying or is it just saying so but not real full soverign. Agree means  ...

Thank you, Ariya. I shall now cast by vote.

Seraphim

Originally posted by ariyamusafir at 10-6-2004 12:28 PM:


Eh, you think what ar. After US leave, the situation will not be so bad in Iraq. The reason there is so much killing now is because they don't want those American Imperialist cum Terrorist be i ...

Hah..whatever..only time would tell...

What Seraphim says is true.  Iraq has seen the worst factional strife in decades under Saddam Hussein's brutal suppression of the 70% majority Shiites of its people, culture and religion. Now comes the chance for a majority calling the shot. A moderate Shiite cleric was bombed at a mosque by the radicals of Sunni sect. At the moment, Shiite themselves are fighting for a share in the political power purportedly by a young cleric Sadr.

All insurgents have given up weapons and reached an accord with the UN and return to civilian life except followers of Sadr have yet to show any sign of compliance.

Not forgetting the Kurdish demands. Recently the Kurds are rejecting for lack of power and representative in the parliament.

It would be unwise to leave in a haste. Thus, the interim Iraqi govt had anticipated internal strife. They are paving ways for foreign troops to stay in order for smooth transition and until all threats that may get in the way is gone.

RedChaSiew

no smooth transition needed,, uncle sam pls go home.

So you must be craving for civil war to erupt in Iraq then. How sick Red.

adm,
how do you know there'll be a big war if uncle sam goes home? UN can help stop the war if it is ever happen but uncle sam pls dont bother to come back.

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by WICKED at 11-6-2004 11:40:
adm,
how do you know there'll be a big war if uncle sam goes home? UN can help stop the war if it is ever happen but uncle sam pls dont bother to come back.

Yes, We do not object a multinational force, it must not consist of the invading force. Also, it must never be led by the US nor Britain, then the situation will definitely be better, way better then if US is around. The stupid elected new Prime Minister stupidly made invitation without mentioning WHO MUST NEVER be in.

Debmey

Talk is cheap me fren. Who will supply the troops? Who will lead? Countries that were bribed by Saddam?

Surely not troops from Muslim countries cos they will incite a civil war and takes sides. The Iraqis knew it and rejected troops from its neighbours insipte of US pressure.
The best solution is still a US led coalition of the willing like Singapore.
BTW we just sent an air tanker to serve the people of Iraq while yu people are still bitching that don't make a dent out of anything.
Like I said, talk is cheap. Very cheap.

[ Last edited by Debmey on 11-6-2004 at 12:12 PM ]

Originally posted by Debmey at 11-6-2004 12:06 PM:
Talk is cheap me fren. Who will supply the troops? Who will lead? Countries that were bribed by Saddam?

Surely not troops from Muslim countries cos they will incite a civil war and takes sides.  ...

Your talk is the cheapest, because it is hypocrisy, countryman... and do stop assuming that you are the Singapore people's  spokesman in this forum.

I resent Singapore getting involved with US occupation of Iraq. But Singapore members of parliament are only 'yes men'. Thats what we want for our country, since we are small. We are only good at being 'yes men' and 'yes women' in as far as world politics go - follow the leader (USA).

The best is UN troops from willing member countries to be stationed in Iraq. Then Singapore can participate. I myself am willing to go. US troops should be minimised. Give the boys a rest because they have sufferred enough.

If President Bush is sincere,  and if he thinks he has done his so-called "good samaritan Christian" job of getting rid of Saddam, he should now ask his troops to retreat and go back home and let the new Iraq govt handle things themselves. To keep the country safe, let the world body take charge, just like in Timor leste.