re:

"The Iraqi Government, their law and their courts system constitute proper authority. That's really the end of the story. If you want to believe that the Iraqi government and it's leadership is so lacking in fortitude that they can't manage with out the BIG USA so be it."

Aqvarivs, you are mistaking your opinions for facts.

Others are of the opinion that, according to the rules and precedents of international law, the present Iraqi courts system do not constitute proper authority.

A market-research survey, done in Iraq, might produce a conclusive answer, but I will neither be designing nor implementing it, and I expect you will also demur the exciting opportunity.

My guess (since there's no point pretending at any expertise in prediction of the future) is that the outcome will be more in line with the statement published by the BRussell Foundation"

"http://www.brusselstribunal.org/

"If the execution of President Saddam Hussein will not lead to an international or global war, it sows the seeds, in its overt illegality, and in conjunction with Washington's exclusion of international law from international relations, for precisely this outcome."

You may disagree with them at length and at your convenience, but there is no point in arguing fine points of international law with me, as I have no recognised legal expertise.

We may agree to disagree on whether SH got a fair trial.

Regarding my confidence in the Iraqi people, there is no basis for your assumption that I have no faith in their ability to govern themselves. I would say that the current US administration has far less confidence than I.

The "War on Terror" in Iraq shows me gross mismanagement, negligence, criminality and gratuitous destruction, of the kinds that the Marshall Plan implementation successfully avoided at the end of WWII, in Germany and Japan.

I listen to news from Iraq and hear "Yanqi go home", loud and clear.
I expect the current Iraqi leadership would need far more than fortitude to survive if US troops withdrew immediately. I expect that some of them would not get a fair trial

Sir Vivor
"Aqvarivs, you are mistaking your opinions for facts."

"Others are of the opinion that..."

Since when do the opinions of the U.N. and "International Law" supersede the rightful legal expression of a duly elected democratic government.

"A market-research survey,... "

It's already been done. The Iraqi people had a free election and got out in record numbers to have their say. Better numbers I might add than the number of Australians that get out to vote.

"If the execution of President Saddam Hussein will not lead to an international or global war, it sows the seeds, in its overt illegality, and in conjunction with Washington's exclusion of international law from international relations, for precisely this outcome."

Rubbish. I had to read this tripe five times before I understood the meaninglessness of that statement.

"The "War on Terror" in Iraq shows me gross mismanagement, negligence, criminality and gratuitous destruction, of the kinds that the Marshall Plan implementation successfully avoided at the end of WWII, in Germany and Japan."

Marshall Plan wasn't in place until 4 yrs. AFTER WWII.

Different war Sir Vivor. The Allied Armies won conclusive surrender of two nations and "owned" their lands and people as victors. Note that with the exception of Russia, all lands and peoples were returned to the people/nation after installation of democratic government and the Allies went further to help with reconstruction. No one denied repayment. Great Britain just finished it's war debt payments to Canada and the USA.

Iraq was never taken from the Iraqi people. Saddam did that. The Coalition forces gave it, Iraq, back to the people.The first thing done was to get an all Iraqi government in place and working.
The Coalition Forces act as Iraqi Army and Iraqi Policemen until Iraqis themselves can get up to speed and take over.

The execution of Saddam was for the Shia Iraqis. The Kurds had their say. 50,000 odd Kurdish fought alongside Coalition troops to free Iraq. And they will have a say in any new Iraqi government.

"It's already been done. The Iraqi people had a free election and got out in record numbers to have their say. Better numbers I might add than the number of Australians that get out to vote.

The execution of Saddam was for the Shia Iraqis. The Kurds had their say. 50,000 odd Kurdish fought alongside Coalition troops to free Iraq. And they will have a say in any new Iraqi government."
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 12 January 2007 8:19:36 AM

I highly doubt Iraq had a better turnout than an Australian election (where voting is compulsory). Higher than a US election? Most probably.

However, what they achieved was an elected government dominated by majority Shia, as per their majority in the country. And the elected Iraqi government is dependent upon Muqtada al Sadr and his Mehdi army.

His Mehdi army has fought a number of battles with U.S. and Iraqi forces, including the uprisings in Najaf and Karbala two years ago. The White House has accused Iran of backing a number of Shiite militia in Iraq, including al-Sadr's Mehdi army.

As has been commented about quite extensively, how can the elected government 'crack down' on the groups and squads that are the reason it is in power? It cannot. It is a ludicrous expectation. Like a dog biting its own tail.

carsten

I'm aware of Australian compulsory voting. However, even with compulsory voting laws Australia achieves 95% turnout. Iraq on the other hand during the January 2005 elections, in spite of neighbourhood suppression, violence, and death threats achieved a 79.6% turnout.
Australians have to vote or else they can be punished. Iraqis voted knowing they could face retribution and death.

I think they we're heroic.

Changes had been made for the 2005 elections to give greater weight to Arab Sunni and Kurdish Sunni voters who make up the majority in several provinces.

"As has been commented about quite extensively, how can the elected government 'crack down' on the groups and squads that are the reason it is in power? It cannot. It is a ludicrous expectation. Like a dog biting its own tail. "

You defeat this type of power struggle by offering the people something better than what they had under Saddam or what they would have if Sadr' has he way and establishes a Shia dictatorship AKA Iran's theocracy.
Giving up and running home only insures that the Sadr's of the world succeed. I'm quite sure that the Americans could find something or some other place to spend the nearly 1Billion/day it cost to be in Iraq.
Then again, perhaps you also believe that the Americans are willing to spend 1 Billion each day and loose the lives of approximately 80 soldiers/day to reap the rewards of a couple of million dollars/day of oil.
Good deal eh! American smart businessmans.

America and the Coalition Forces in Iraq are offering Iraqis a chance at freedom and to be come participants in the free world. Thats a huge undertaking and with all the lefty opposition, the anti American rhetoric, and anti-western hatred stepping all over everything in order to inhibit success. God willing the Iraqis will have that experience.

Well, it seems that Democracy, whatever that means, is on the highest pillar and make no mistake about the magical powers of this word - able to turn dog pure into pure perfume and almost raise the dead (well, give them a fair trial then hang them, anyway). But beauty is in the eye (and nose) of the beholder.

Forget absolute numbers here, since democracy is based on proportions.

I'll bet GWB was voted in by far less than 50% of what Australians would call eligible voters (liable to be fined for not voting)

Did 40% of elegible American voters make it to the polls? I should Google it, but my guess is less than half of all possibles, red, blue, pink, green, brindle and piebald, did the democratic thing.

And how many voted for GWB? Not quite so many as votes as got given him by those You-Beaut electronic machines. Likely less than 25% of eligible American electors voted for GWB, and then the US Executive thinks it has a mandate to send more troops to Iraq and set up a sand castle (or maybe a house of cards). A democratic sand castle (or house of cards). Sand castle, since Iraq is by all accounts fairly sandy.

What I remember about US news last November was the timely TV coverage about the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and all the palaver about rigged elections there. Along about the same time dodgy deeds were done with Diebold vote-counting apparatus. And the coverage of black Americans, lined up around the block in Ohio, in cold, rainy weather, waiting their chance to be part of "World's Greatest Democracy".

A bit less money on susso technology, a bit more on enough polling places and paper ballots, scrutineers and oversight, might see even Aqvarivs appreciating the sort of fair federal elections Australians enjoy.

Maybe "inked thumb" technology would be more honest for the American voters, like those smiling Iraqis were so proud of on TV, men and women who who thought they were going to get electricity, running water and safe streets for their decision.

America and the Coalition Forces in Iraq are offering Iraqis a chance at freedom and to be come participants in the free world. Thats a huge undertaking and with all the lefty opposition, the anti American rhetoric, and anti-western hatred stepping all over everything in order to inhibit success. God willing the Iraqis will have that experience.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 12 January 2007 12:38:33 PM

It is not anti-american/western anything..... And whatever discussions (like this) we have in the west has nothing to do with the reality of what is going to happen on the ground in Iraq - discussions here are not going to undermine anything there.

It is just ludricrous to expect a government dependent on Shiite milita, to 'control' the militia. I don't care who or where it is - but a political party, anywhere in the world, cannot survive by undermining/eliminating its support.

If Maliki did not have the support of Sadr's bloc, he would not be Prime Minister. Simple as that. And does anyone really want an Iraq driven by Sadr's ambitions? Well, like it or not, that is what they are getting.

"Why has the prime minister proven unable to rid Iraq of militias?
Maliki relies too heavily on Sadr’s bloc, which controls thirty seats in parliament, for domestic political support. Further, large segments of Iraq’s majority Shiite population actually do not favor disbanding these militias, experts say. “Even if Maliki wanted to go against the militias, he has public opinion to worry about,” says Abbas Kadhim, assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Many Iraqis view these Shiite groups much like some Lebanese view Hezbollah: as protectors who fill in a security vacuum and provide basic services. “It’s a myth to say the militias are bad for Iraq,” Kadhim says. “They are the only ones providing anything meaningful for Iraqis. The problem [for Iraqis] is choosing between anarchy and a militia that protects you for a price.”" http://www.cfr.org/publication/11787/maliki_and_sadr.html