Just Curious, Whats your views on the June 30 th deadline?

[Only Me]

1. Do you think that it is a way for the administration to try to step aside from the situation they created(save face)?


2. Do you think that the hand over ( or lack of one) will be an overall success or big blow up (failure) or other?


I have thought many times, this was a part of the Bush Team strategy to try to step a way from all the mess and lies associated with this war. You know throwing the peasants a scrap of bread, so-to-speak.

I also think if the turn over is fairly successful, Bush will use this to gain ground for the 04 Elections, giving him about 5 months to smooth his rumpled bed.

What do you think?

[David Dunham]

1. It will fail, and the attacks on US troops will continue.

[NMDemDist2]

2. no, and other

he can't save face cuz the situtation will stay the same.

other because it won't blow up right away.

i think it will stay a burr in the WH's butt until kerry comes in and cleans up the mess by begging the other nations of the world to help us.

what is gonna be a problem for bush is that he refuses to release any power to anyone, be they the Iraqis or Nato or the UN. as long as the US remains the only party with any real decsion making power the Iraqi's will continue to "resist"

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinniped]

4. Stupid POS chimp will attempt to equate June 30th with our July 4th...

The AHOLE will definitely mention June 30th wherever the moran is on July 4th.

Iraqi Independence Day.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. using a general rule of thumb

if Bush conceived it, then its fucked.

That being said, it's not even clear its a deadline for anything. I mean, what is a transfer of sovereignty if the US maintains security?

sov·er·eign·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.<-------HAHAHA yeah right!
A territory existing as an independent state.

[nonconformist]

6. It will be a formality only.

There will be no dramatic changes, and we'll be in the same position after as we are before.

[sushi]

7. That's exactly right

It will be a formality. A ceremony with solemn speeches and handshakes, but the Iraqis won't be in control after June 30. I read, for example, that the Iraqis can't cancel rules introduced by Bremer.

[FlemingsGhost]

8. I'm waitin' fer the Tee-Vee ta tell me what ta thunk

Can mah scrappa bread be wheat?

[Only Me]

9. You are in deep trouble now...

BUSH ADMINISTRATION: HELL NO! }(Your supposed to wait till I tell you what to think, you sound like one of them damn insurgents!
You don't get no bread!! }(

:)

[Solly Mack]

10. June 30 is awfully close to the Chimp's vacation time

and with the 4th of July extra-long weekend immediately after the June 30th deadline, Chucklenuts is just picking a time to quietly sneak into seclusion to rest himself from all the hard work he does on the behalf of the American people.

(giggles madly)

[Only Me]

11. So Sad, but it is Soooooo TRUE!

[radfringe]

12. 6/30 deadline

1. Do you think that it is a way for the administration to try to step aside from the situation they created(save face)?

Deadline is to give the appearance that they have a plan, that things are going well in Iraq -- whatever 'government" is set up is just going to be cardboard cutouts suitable for photo-ops in bush*'s campaign


2. Do you think that the hand over ( or lack of one) will be an overall success or big blow up (failure) or other?

a REAL hand-over is not going to happen -- what we have here is just photo-op fodder. We will still have troops over there, and will need even more troops/equipment for a few more years as long as bush* has his butt in the oval office.

We are about 60 days away from the "hand-over" and bush* inc. still hasn't SELECTED an Iraqi puppet.

[oblivious]

13. It's just a sound bite for the American public

<snip> The Bush administration's plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws, administration officials said Thursday.<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/politics/23DIPL.html?ei=1&en=b5e18beeca5428ce&ex=1083690196&pagewanted=print&position=

Even the US appointed council finds this unacceptable.

[Karenina]

14. So like,

WHO gets to sign the Status of Forces Agreement? :shrug:

[Disturbed]

15. Exit Iraq?

Sovereignty? Farce!

There are plans for 14 US Military bases. How many troops does that mean? Plus a 3K personnel Embassy.

[doni_georgia]

16. It's a farce

We will not hand over power on June 30th - period. There will probably be a government installed on that date, but it will have no real power. We will be staying in Iraq (as Bush* said), and we will be the ones calling the shots. The government will be hand-picked based on its willingness to follow and go along with US policies. Any attempts by the people to oppose that government or speak out against that government will be quashed by US military might. The purpose of this regime change isn't to install a democratic government in Iraq. It is to install a US-friendly government in Iraq. History has shown us that these US-friendly governments are rarely democratic. By the very nature of the quest, I don't see how it could be. Look at Spain. There was a US-friendly government in Spain, but Spain is democratic and the people voted that government out! Anyone who expects the Iraqi people to vote in a government friendly to the US is kidding themselves. Even Bush* said that "no one likes to be occupied." Even those Iraqis who welcomed us at Saddam's overthrow are now questioning or directly opposing our tacticts. We are not winning friends in Iraq. Instead we are making enemies - some of whom would have had little power before, but are gaining authority based simply on their opposition to the US occupation. In the end, we will either have to keep a permanent military presence in Iraq to subdue opposition, or we will pull out and the Iraqi people through many conflicts and civil conflict will finally become an independent nation once more - but the chances of that nation ever supporting the US are slim to none.

[wickerwoman]

17. Mostly he wants to step away from the expense of a military operation

without actually handing over any control.

We'll keep just enough troops in Iraq to protect the oil rigs and the rest of the country will go to hell in a handbasket. Until the next insurgency which requires us to send more troops in.

Either it will work and the troops that are freed up will more on to Syria or Iran after Nov 2004, or it (probably) won't free up any troops at all. But Bush can point to nice news footage of the handover.