US returns sovereignty to Iraqis

I'm surprised no one's started a topic on this yet. It seems the Americans have kept their promise and have given the Iraqis control over everything, even earlier than expected, while keeping the soldiers as per the Iraqis' request. Apparantely they have even given Saddam to them.
In Israel people aren't really interested in all of this, so I don't get to hear many viewpoints. Any criticism? Anything I got wrong? Seems to me like Americans are doing here exactly what they should be doing. Question is if the Iraqis are ready to manage the country yet... if they prove to not be, should the Americans resume power? Should the UN be there instead of the American soldiers? I'm just asking random questions here but I want to here your overall opinion on all of this. Especially whether, god forbid, the US was okay here.
The link below contains in it quite a number of links to other aspects of the situation. If you have no idea what I'm talking about and a lot of time then maybe you'd want to catch up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html

Hooray! Terrorism is still occuring, and there is still an american government. I wonder what was supposed to happen.. people rejoicing in the streets. Let's hope the elections will be more realistic.

Speaking of realism, read this:

http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm

Mr U

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Hooray! Terrorism is still occuring, and there is still an american government. I wonder what was supposed to happen.. people rejoicing in the streets. Let's hope the elections will be more realistic.

Speaking of realism, read this:

http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm

Mr U

I've gotten this email too and wanted to make a new thread - damn you were faster than me ;)

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Hooray! Terrorism is still occuring, and there is still an american government. I wonder what was supposed to happen.. people rejoicing in the streets. Let's hope the elections will be more realistic.

Speaking of realism, read this:

http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm

Mr U
Right. As I said I have no idea what's going on and it'd be great if you could clarify what you think. What have the Americans been doing wrong? What should they do now?

The government is not American. It's a temporary government that obviously has to be trusted by the US. I think it's the right way to go. I think it's the first step towards independence. What do you think?

About that article, I've got to say I am not convinced...

1. The orange overalls could also be either pure coincidence or a gesture by the terrorists - a sort of "eye for an eye" thing.

2. White plastic chair??? Give me a break. There are millions of those around. Especially considering that both of these events took place in Iraq...

3. I don't know what proof we have that the walls are the same besides the report telling us. Besides, two similar walls in two different places is a concept that makes sense, at least to me.

4. I see a cap, and I see a jacket, but I see nothing that would make me think they are military issue...

5. There is no reason for an Al Queda terrorist to not be pudgy and wear clean tennis shoes. Why the hell wouldn't he?

6. I don't see any evidence of Uzi clips. But even if I did, what would that prove? That the men dressed as terrorists are Israeli? The Uzi gun is widely imported, and, being an automatic it is not used by the Israeli army, and, although I should probably check my sources on this, it is very reasonable to assume it is not used by the American army either. In fact, it makes the most sense for it to be used by terrorists, since they care less about accuracy than about maximum damage...

7. Is "garb" the headcloth? if it is arranged rediculously, which I don't think it is, it could also be because the terrorists arranged it rediculously. There's a lot of speculation here, but to disprove a video I'd think some hard evidence would be in order...

8. You can tell the writer is extremely biased just by reading the words here. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept everything he says on fac value. He sounds real bitter.

9. I am not completely sure of this, but, didn't Al Queda officially take responsibility for the murder? I know that if they did it doesn't necessarily mean that they were really responsible, but it does prove that it would have been in their interest to kill Berg, whilst the writer claims that the Americans fabricated this for American interest...


I dunno guys... sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me... :p

Hmm.. If the video is correct, than there is reason to believe that Al-Qaeda claiming the attack is also fake. After all, Bin Laden died in 2002, and most of the leaders of the terrorist group are already dead.

I admit that none of the things on the video are actually hard evidence, however, the guy stepping into the screen for a moment seems a bit odd.

I stated earlier, before I even laid eyes upon this evidence that the Berg assasination was very profitable for the US agenda.

On this image (http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/greatcrimes/index.html) you can see evidence that it is highly unlikely that an airplane crashed into the pentagon. If the information I received is correctly, an official at the whitehouse confirmed that it was in fact a missile. I do not have any sources for that though. Nevertheless, if a government is willing to kill as many as it did on 9/11, in the pentagon alone, is it so hard to believe that they would kill Berg as well?

Also, consider the fact that the circumstances Berg was in were highly questionable. The story of his capturement are to say the least, odd. Actually, I would classify it as beyond odd. First he got arrested by the US, than released and than captured by the Iraqis.

I realise that I too may biased and want to see the evidence, and I am very much aware of this, however, this does not mean that we should not consider a possible, that is obviously plausible, that the US was behind that murder just to suit there agenda.

Non-American Government? Ha. I would not dream of calling those crooks Iraqi. I have seen too much governments installed where they shortly after made a deal with the US that delivered the US oil at a cheap price.

Oil prices are at an all-time high. Who is profiting, you think? Bush sr has his prints all over oil-corporations.

9/11 and Iraq are a smelly business, freeyourmind, no doubt about in my mind.

Uzis? I though terrorists always used AK-47's! Guess I have played too much Command and Conquer, for the GLA. "AK-47's for everyone!" :p

Mr U

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Hmm.. If the video is correct, than there is reason to believe that Al-Qaeda claiming the attack is also fake. After all, Bin Laden died in 2002, and most of the leaders of the terrorist group are already dead.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this... fake as in Al Queda falsely took resposbility or fake as in it was a group pretending to be Al Queda claiming responsbility? Neither possibility makes much sense to me.
I know that naturally you would take an American victory in Afghanistan for granted, but I'll still need more evidence. It's not so hard for me to believe that an escape artist like Bin-Laden is supposed to be evaded the Americans. Where are the bodies of the other dead leaders buried?
I admit that none of the things on the video are actually hard evidence, however, the guy stepping into the screen for a moment seems a bit odd.
Odd? Not really. Maybe there were a couple of people standing next to the man filming the video and they moved around too much. Anyhow, his clothes look nothing like military issue to me. The shirt is clear (as in not camouflaged) and the cap too is a simple cap. Whether or not this is strange is debatable, but still this doesn't go anywhere near qualifying as evidence. It's still speculation.
I stated earlier, before I even laid eyes upon this evidence that the Berg assasination was very profitable for the US agenda.
You did? I don't remember what you said then. How would it be profitable? Wouldn't the Americans want to show the world that the Iraqis want them there and that the peace is being kept?
I'd have thought it would have made much more sense logically that this act came as a response to what happened to the Abu Ghraib prisoners. Terrorists perpetrate these kind of revenge acts all the time.

On this image (http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/greatcrimes/index.html) you can see evidence that it is highly unlikely that an airplane crashed into the pentagon. If the information I received is correctly, an official at the whitehouse confirmed that it was in fact a missile. I do not have any sources for that though. Nevertheless, if a government is willing to kill as many as it did on 9/11, in the pentagon alone, is it so hard to believe that they would kill Berg as well?
It's an interesting image, but it's not evidence. It's an advert hinting at what could potentially be evidence that the attack on the pentagon was done by the Americans.
I'm afraid I will have to see your sources on that to accept what you are saying, since what you are talking about sounds to me like an international news conspiracy. You talk about likeliness. You must be aware how unlikely what you're suggesting is. It would mean all the media in the world is completely defunct.
Besides, even if you showed me incontrevertible proof that it was the Americans who were responsible for the pentagon attack, you would still only be speculating about Nick Berg. I've got to admit that I haven't watched the video, since I didn't really feel I had to, since this had nothing to do with me, but from what I understand it is more convincing than all these speculations. Since we're discussing it maybe you could show me a link and tell me where it seems edited or whatever ;) The evidence brought in that other webpage you got by email was quite weak I gotta say...
Also, consider the fact that the circumstances Berg was in were highly questionable. The story of his capturement are to say the least, odd. Actually, I would classify it as beyond odd. First he got arrested by the US, than released and than captured by the Iraqis.
Again, the oddness is debatable, but what isn't debatable is the fact that this is not incontrevertible evidence, but again more and more speculation, by people probably want to believe in this stuff more than they want to find the truth.
I realise that I too may biased and want to see the evidence, and I am very much aware of this, however, this does not mean that we should not consider a possible, that is obviously plausible, that the US was behind that murder just to suit there agenda.
I'm actually not ruling that out, even though I'm very tempted to, since I've promised myself not to take anything at face value, or as few things as possible anyway - but I would still need to see evidence that would at least make it seem more likely that this was staged than real. I'm not seeing that yet. More importantly, I don't see how this will suit the US agenda. All it did was freak its citizens out.
Non-American Government? Ha. I would not dream of calling those crooks Iraqi. I have seen too much governments installed where they shortly after made a deal with the US that delivered the US oil at a cheap price.

Oil prices are at an all-time high. Who is profiting, you think? Bush sr has his prints all over oil-corporations.
You're being very vague here. As I've said I'm not following this story as closely as you Europeans are, but I'm still interested. Why are these people crooks? What have they done wrong so far? Which other governments are you talking about? What do the oil prices have to do with any of this? I'm completely in the dark here. I need filling in.
I guess the most important question still is - what would you have done differently to make it right?

9/11 and Iraq are a smelly business, freeyourmind, no doubt about in my mind.

Uzis? I though terrorists always used AK-47's! Guess I have played too much Command and Conquer, for the GLA. "AK-47's for everyone!" :p

Mr U
I dunno man, doubt is an important thing. I have very little doubt that all these terrorist attacks against America took place, but the doubt is still there. That's why I'm still discussing this with you.
Why are you still discussing this with me? In order to convince me you're right? In order to convince the rest of the board you are right? Because that's not a sane way to conduct an argument. The only way these things get anywhere is if people are looking for the truth and will consider changing their mind to suit it...

About terrorist weaponry - I'm probably not the guy to ask about guns, but I think that AKs are good enough guns to be used by an army as well. Terrorists in general would use automatic and semi-automatic weapons since that is the most suitable weapon for inflicting maximum damage. Their drawback is that they're not very accurate, only the terrorists don't really consider this a drawback do they?

You're being very vague here. As I've said I'm not following this story as closely as you Europeans are, but I'm still interested. Why are these people crooks? What have they done wrong so far? Which other governments are you talking about? What do the oil prices have to do with any of this? I'm completely in the dark here. I need filling in.
I guess the most important question still is - what would you have done differently to make it right?


I would have supported the nation through food, medical supplies and such. You see, we installed the Ba'at party in Iraq. We are directly responsible for Sadam Hussein. Now, I would normally agree that a man as cruel as Hussein should be removed. The Need of the many.. blabla.
However, the Iraqi people, the entire middle-east are traumatised. We are to blame. We, the western world, corrupted these lands.

Basically, as the US, I would not have invaded Iraq unless the UN explicitely asked med too.
As the UN, I would have enforced the US not to take actions against Iraq, through the application of, per example trade boycot. Let the US feel the power the world has over them.

All it did was freak its citizens out.

Wrong. It was a motivator. The death of Nick Berg enforced the idea of how evil Al-Qaeda is. Whether Bush stays or Kerry comes, they will continue to 'fight' Al-Qaeda. (I believe) This basicly means establishing a foothold in Iraq, and invating other nations of strategical importance within the Middle-East.

Mr U

I would have supported the nation through food, medical supplies and such. You see, we installed the Ba'at party in Iraq. We are directly responsible for Sadam Hussein. Now, I would normally agree that a man as cruel as Hussein should be removed. The Need of the many.. blabla.
However, the Iraqi people, the entire middle-east are traumatised. We are to blame. We, the western world, corrupted these lands.

Basically, as the US, I would not have invaded Iraq unless the UN explicitely asked med too.
As the UN, I would have enforced the US not to take actions against Iraq, through the application of, per example trade boycot. Let the US feel the power the world has over them.
Yeah, I know how you feel about the invasion. But this is old news and old claims. What I'm asking is, having already invaded Iraq, what would now be the correct course of action to take in your opinion. The reason I brought this thread up was because I wanted to check if there are sides here that I'm not seeing. I may be mistaken, but you seem to have criticism on the way the Americans are going about giving the Iraqis their independence. I ask again, what would you have done instead? Would retreating unilaterally be better in your opinion?

As for the UN, I doubt it has the power to forve on the US. It can't even force Israel to do anything. Besides, the US has veto power, so the UN could basically be rendered useless if it started to get on the US' nerves.

Wrong. It was a motivator. The death of Nick Berg enforced the idea of how evil Al-Qaeda is. Whether Bush stays or Kerry comes, they will continue to 'fight' Al-Qaeda. (I believe) This basicly means establishing a foothold in Iraq, and invating other nations of strategical importance within the Middle-East.

Mr U
Hmm, I dunno. Americans are already rather firmly inclined to think of Al Queda as evil (btw, do you?). If you're saying that it forcened the American resolve on the war against terror then I might agree with you though. However, you've got to admit that politically this wasn't a wise move with regard to America's postion on Iraq. It showed in a very public way that America is having trouble maintaining peace and good relations with the Iraqis, and portrayed Iraq as a place much more dangerous than the Americans would probably like the world to think... so this isn't completely in their interest, despite it being possible that they'd sacrifice the popularity of the war on Iraq for the sake of the war on terror. Possible, but not likely. And again, considering all of the very thin evidence we see here, extremely speculative.