| Author |
Message |
    
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 10:29 am: |     |
HOT OFF THE PRESS!
Following is a timeline for U.S. plans to hand over power to Iraqis until elections expected to be held in 2005.
+ May 2004 - A transitional Iraqi assembly is due to be in place by end-May as the first step in the new U.S. roadmap for handing over sovereignty to Iraqis.
The assembly is expected to be selected by regional caucuses across the country, although Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, wants it to be directly elected.
+ June 2004 - The transitional assembly will take over from the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, following regional caucuses to select the assembly's representatives. The formal handover of power to a sovereign interim Iraqi government is expected to be completed on June 30 or July 1.
This will then pick the a sovereign Iraqi government.
+ 2005 - Elections to be held.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2090
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Cool. I'm sure that Sistani won't be a problem.
When are we going to be out of the domestic security business? That is the real milestone of interest and not all of the puppet government smoke and mirrors. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2746
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
It's not exactly "hot off the press".
And, you left out the fact that the Administration has suddenly realized the value of the United Nations in bringing about stability in Iraq:
quote:NEW YORK - U.N. officials will look for ways during a highly anticipated meeting today to accommodate U.S. and Iraqi demands for a quick return to Iraq without being seen as a rubber stamp for American interests.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan meets this morning with senior officials from the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council, both of which seek U.N. help to legitimize plans for the turnover of sovereignty to Iraqis at the end of June.
Specifically, U.S. officials want Mr. Annan and his aides to help persuade an influential Shi'ite cleric to go along with coalition plans for a series of regional caucuses to select an interim Iraqi government.
Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani has alarmed coalition officials by insisting on direct elections before the June 30 power transfer, something the Americans fear could destabilize the country and upset reconstruction plans.
...
There is little doubt the United Nations will return to Iraq sooner or later.
The United States and Britain, which initially after the war had insisted on limiting the world body to a humanitarian role, now seem eager to take advantage of the organization's experience in nation-building.
They also hope the respect enjoyed by the United Nations in the eyes of Iraqis will help to legitimize their plans for rebuilding the country.
Source: Washington Times, 1/19/04. |
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
"suddenly realized" 
Nohero, you're so cute when you make things up.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
can someone explain, without the expected condescension, why if we went to war without the UN we should expect them to help out now?? I mean I remember hearing how irrelevant they were when it was time to invade, when did they suddenly become relevant again??
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2747
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Just going by what I read in the Washington Times: "The United States and Britain, which initially after the war had insisted on limiting the world body to a humanitarian role, now seem eager to take advantage of the organization's experience in nation-building."
But you're right, it may not be wise to trust a rag like the Washington Times.
|
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Nohero,
You don't read the Washington Times. You do a google and you came up with one of their articles.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 737
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
I'd say that it's not entirely unprecedented for the UN to engage in the civil affairs of a post-war country when they disapproved of the war in the first place.
The UN is in Kosovo, after all. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2748
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
So, you don't actually have a response, do you? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 738
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Nation-building is a humanitarian role, Nohero. As opposed to, say.....blowing up the enemy, which would be a war-time role.
I find it odd, though, that the supposedly the Shiite uber-cleric Sistani will take what the UN says on elections seriously. It is the UN which stood by for decades while Saddam oppressed his congregation and country. But if it helps, it helps, I guess. Wires today say that Annan also believes a full-fledged direct election that Sistani wants is impracticable so soon.
And to add to the response to Duncan's question, I think the UN would have been active in a post-military intervention Rwanda after Mr. Annan failed to rally the world to his continent. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page