New Iraqi Prime Minister : you gotta love FREE Iraq !!!

Howdoin

Howdoin

, Le BLING-BLING!,
Joined
Jul 31, 2002
Posts
1,689
I know some of you (most) don't speak French so I'll sumarize for you:

CNN News

CNN.com report on the newly chosen Iraqi Prime Minister... they basically says he is a nice, able and very dependable guy.


French News (From Reuters) [Same in english ]

The same news from France : they do say that he is a nice and able guy... linked to the CIA, MI5 and Saudi Arabia...


If this is true (And I tend to believe it) you gotta love the independance of the new Iraqi governement :lol:

I am not necessarily saying its bad, I just love to see the differences in covering the same news in two different countries.[
 
Last edited:
dragonwillow

dragonwillow

Ghost of Captain Kidd
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
1,664
I thought Iraqis were supposed to elect their officials?
Well, I guess when Bush said that he'd transfer power to Iraqis, he didn't mean the Iraqi people... just Iraqi operatives working for America -_-
 
rarehero

rarehero

Rotterdam Nation Resident,
20 Year Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Posts
13,454
good news,
the sooner we give them soveriegnty,
the sooner we can allieviate our military presence.
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Of course France is gonna dump over the new Iraqi PM - they're still sad that they won't be getting the billion or so dollars owed to them by Saddam. Oh well, too bad :tickled:
 
PleaseKillMeNow

PleaseKillMeNow

Aerobics Instructor,
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Posts
7,484
I'm still confused as to why they had to make a new flag? Also, to one that looks like the Islamic version of the Israel flag?
 
Howdoin

Howdoin

, Le BLING-BLING!,
Joined
Jul 31, 2002
Posts
1,689
galfordo said:
Of course France is gonna dump over the new Iraqi PM - they're still sad that they won't be getting the billion or so dollars owed to them by Saddam. Oh well, too bad :tickled:
Click to expand...

They are actually not dumping over him (yet), they just prefer to chose a report from a News Agency that insist more on the link of this new PM to the CIA (Reuters) when CNN prefers to chose a report from a News Agency who fails to mention his ties to CIA (AP).

You just have to love the way information is fed to the crowd so as to support political agendas. This is why I NEVER believe one source of information, always read at least 2/3 report from different countries.
 
aria

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
Tom Wopat said:
I'm still confused as to why they had to make a new flag? Also, to one that looks like the Islamic version of the Israel flag?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that flag is getting revised again for that very reason.


As for the PM, of course he's tied to the US, how else would he get appointed by the US :)

If the US hands over power on June 30th it will be "in name only". Why? All the troops will still be there, so we'd have to see if the Iraqi "government" asks them to leave to determine whether the whole sovereignty thing is serious.

Of course, I think the US keeps hammering the June 30th handoff for a few reasons:
(1) Its also trying to get UN involvement through a proposed resolution in front of the Security Council. If the US looks like its going to (sort of) cut and run, in the interests of international peace and security in the region, the UN may be more likely to go in. However, the current draft still demands US leadership of any UN force -so this ties into the "US isn't going anywhere" point I made earlier.
(2) Its a political decision (duh). Bush needs to look like something's happening in Iraq that's positive (and bigger than a school reopenning). Of course, elections haven't occured in Afghanistan yet, but its a far worse off country. Basically, anything to get people off the failed WMD argument is a good thing. Its a very politically oriented thing to do because, in practical terms, its not really going to change what the US is doing in Iraq other than they'll actually have a "boss" that could tell them to leave -in theory.
 
rarehero

rarehero

Rotterdam Nation Resident,
20 Year Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Posts
13,454
Bobak said:
I'm fairly sure that flag is getting revised again for that very reason.


As for the PM, of course he's tied to the US, how else would he get appointed by the US :)

If the US hands over power on June 30th it will be "in name only". Why? All the troops will still be there, so we'd have to see if the Iraqi "government" asks them to leave to determine whether the whole sovereignty thing is serious.

Of course, I think the US keeps hammering the June 30th handoff for a few reasons:
(1) Its also trying to get UN involvement through a proposed resolution in front of the Security Council. If the US looks like its going to (sort of) cut and run, in the interests of international peace and security in the region, the UN may be more likely to go in. However, the current draft still demands US leadership of any UN force -so this ties into the "US isn't going anywhere" point I made earlier.
(2) Its a political decision (duh). Bush needs to look like something's happening in Iraq that's positive (and bigger than a school reopenning). Of course, elections haven't occured in Afghanistan yet, but its a far worse off country. Basically, anything to get people off the failed WMD argument is a good thing. Its a very politically oriented thing to do because, in practical terms, its not really going to change what the US is doing in Iraq other than they'll actually have a "boss" that could tell them to leave -in theory.
Click to expand...

for some reason I thought I heard somewhere that it would be an interim
government until the people could vote democratically for a prime minister
in the coming year.
and yes. that flag design is pretty poorly thought out.
 
R

RAINBOW PONY

DASH DARK ANDY K,
20 Year Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Posts
24,310
Howdoin said:
You just have to love the way information is fed to the crowd so as to support political agendas. This is why I NEVER believe one source of information, always read at least 2/3 report from different countries.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%! :buttrock:
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Howdoin said:
You just have to love the way information is fed to the crowd so as to support political agendas. This is why I NEVER believe one source of information, always read at least 2/3 report from different countries.
Click to expand...

very true. I agree as well.
 
J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
I read these, then checked the BBC account. That made more sense on the "CIA ties"

"He later became a founding member of the Iraqi National Accord, a group of exiles backed by US and British intelligence that included many former military officers opposed to the Baghdad regime."

Yeah, the CIA backed the Iraqi National Accord. So yeah, this is not a huge deal, but it does illustrate well how the US report downplays possible CIA links while the French reports highlights them.

Nonetheless this transfer seems exntirely in name only. The US "appoints" a Prime Minister and says "We gave the Iraqi's power over themselves. This Prim Minister, quite logically, would not ask the US to leave as they gave him authority. His authority is derived from us, and not the Iraqis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top