Article

2004-04-27 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-27 12:56:39 AM|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm surprised Powell even "went there" in terms of discussing these issues. Obviously the status of forces agreement and autonomy of US forces was always going to be key, and tricky. But there's nothing to be gained by talking about this openly -- Powell is sharper than this, wonder if he was drawn out on it by questions or something else is going on.

As for Barzani, two points. Frankly, I imagine he might have dealt with the situation better than we did, but we were constrained by our own and world standards, so there we are. Second, I'll personally put him in charge if he can explain what the hell he and others mean by turning "into an army of occupation." There's something negative about this term for him and others, but it's a perfectly neutral term in int. law and practice, and they never explain exactly what the difference is between this and being an army of "liberators". Annoying.

Posted by IceCold 2004-04-27 1:46:21 AM|| 2004-04-27 1:46:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 quote 'The US has warned that the new government due to take power in Iraq on 1 July will have to delegate some of its powers to the coalition. Secretary of State Colin Powell said it was important that coalition troops continued to operate under US command. '

Unfortunatley atm Iraqi's couldnt run a bath , let alone their own country .....

Posted by MacNails 2004-04-27 5:08:43 AM|| 2004-04-27 5:08:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Back when the Iraqi Army occupied Kuwait and parts of Iran, the concept of an "occupation army" caused no public criticism among Iraqis.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-04-27 7:31:39 AM|| 2004-04-27 7:31:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeah, yeah, tough guy, you're so smart you only lived under Saddam for 30 years.

Just to clarify, he headed part of the Kurdish autonomous zone, (under US/UK air protection, to be sure). So for the last 13 years he WASNT under Saddam. And prior to that hed led rebellion against Saddam.

In any case, are we going to diss anyone who lived under Saddam??? I mean like who are we expecting to run Iraq??

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 11:26:45 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:26:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Antiwar TROLL 2004-04-27 11:41:38 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:41:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 If you had any doubts about the quality of BBC reporting ... congratulations, you were right. They are quoting their own correspondent as if he were (1) independent of the BBC, and (2) someone whose opinion matters. What a joke, seriously pathetic. Reminds me of when I was ten and my friend and I did a (one-edition) neighborhood newsletter. We interviewed each other too.

Posted by sludj 2004-04-27 3:57:37 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:57:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Antiwar 2004-04-27 11:41:38 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:41:38 AM|| Front Page Top

09:44 muck4doo
09:35 raptor
04:03 Howard UK
01:55 Rex Mundi
00:06 BigEd
00:03 Pappy
00:01 Mike Sylwester
00:00 Old Patriot
23:57 Super Hose
23:52 Super Hose
23:52 Old Patriot
23:46 Barbara Skolaut
23:42 Pappy
23:38 Long Hair Republican
23:30 Super Hose
23:30 Pappy
23:20 Bomb-a-rama
23:16 Ol_Dirty_American
23:11 ruprecht
23:07 Anonymous4602
23:02 ex-lib
22:51 Infidel Bob
22:48 Phil Fraering
22:48 Super Hose