Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Is this how to promote democracy?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Is this how to promote democracy? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/136314-how-promote-democracy.html)

Is this how to promote democracy?

The Bush administration is currently negotiating a new "status of forces" agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq in order to have legal cover for a long term occupation after Bush leaves office.

The current agreement that provides that cover was a UN resolution in '04 (after the fall of Saddam and the establishment of an interim government in Iraq). It expires at the end of this year.

If a new agreement between the US and Iraq is not signed by Jan 1,09, a continued US occupation would be illegal under Iraqi and international law.

Bush is reportedly insisting on several key provisions that have outraged the Iraqi of all parties:

* 58 permanent US bases - currently there are only about 30 bases

* Immunity from prosecution for US civilian contract employees for any crimes they may commit in Iraq

* US control over Iraqi airspace

* US determination of what is considered an "act of aggression" against Iraq

* US determination of what is an "anti-democratic" movement or organization in Iraq

Iraqis Condemn American Demands

To "encourage" (I would call it extortion) the Iraqis to accept these provisions, the US is reportedly holding hostage $50 billion of Iraq's funds currently held in the US.

The Iraqi parliament must approve any final "status of forces" agreement yet Bush has unilaterally determined it is unnecessary for the US Congress to also approve the agreement.....democracy abroad, just not at home.

The only think Bush may succeed in accomplishing with this "diplomatic" initiative is uniting the Iraqi parliament in a shared outraged over the US attempting to impose itself as "puppet master" of the Iraqi people for an undetermined period of time into the future.

Quote:

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

...

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al-Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party. "The Americans insist so far that it is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq ... if we come under aggression we should define it, and we ask for help," al-Adeeb said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/40372.html

The best possible scenario, IMO, is for the Iraqis to say "fuck you....we aint signing this bullshit....now get out..NOW"

WTF? Is this how we "promote" democracy abroad and demonstrate respect for the sovereignty of another nation?

The terms of the agreement are pretty scary. Imperial dominance, to say the least. Though it can be argued that American imperialism is powerless considering how they're still struggling so much with Iraq and only Iraq. But that's for another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The best possible scenario, IMO, is for the Iraqis to say "fuck you....we aint signing this bullshit....now get out..NOW"

Depending on how it played out, this scenario could very well be Iraq's best demonstration of democratic power.

What do the people want?

yes, yes it is. <weeps>

What do the people want? Ask the Iraqi's - over 70% want us out of their country. The leaders of Iraq and Iran just met and agreed that things will not be better for either country until the U.S. leaves Iraq. Bush, Cheney, and their croneys need to give up their desire to posess Iraq oil.

It might not have been a bad Idea to consult the USSR prior to this whole endeavor. It's possible they might have been able to give insight on how invading a Middle Eastern country and attempting to occupy it would turn out.

I keep hearing how once the violence stops having a force there will be much like it is in Japan, Germany or South Korea. First that assumes the violence is going to stop. Given the long history of the conflicts in the region I have my doubts. Centuries of war and killing, seemingly these folks don't let things go. We've lost something like 11 or 12 people this month and it's been the best month so far. Ok, we're down to one person a day. Is that acceptable? What if it were one a month? A year? How many American lives is Iraq worth? Then we have financial cost. How much is it going to cost to maintain a force there? Are we going to borrow that money too? Once we add Iraq to the list of foreign deployments are we going to added another country and another until we truly are "Team America World Police?"

What bullshit. Democracy doesn't even work, so it pisses me off when i see how vehemently some people want to spread it.

Speaking of Iraq, the picture I've seen of Maliki looks kind of... white. Puppet government anyone?

it's going to get to the point where genocide actually seems like a good answer if we keep killing eachother, they'll just want to call it the United States of Iraq just to be able to recoup some of the costs of this war.

I just watched "Stop Loss" today too.

this whole thing is sickening.

Bush has it all wrong. Gemma Garrett obviously hits the nail on the head, politics just isn't glamorous and what's to like about THAT?:
http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/vi...urceID=1319115

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Bush administration is so fucking done. And they know it.