Hi there!
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Iraq
I've been reading up on this new iterim premier of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, and alarm bells are ringing in my head. This man is known to be agressive (as a student he once forced his fellow students into striking by threatening them with a machine gun) and he has the full backing of the CIA, he has been 'their man' for years.
The Governing Council members generally need a map to find themselves, I find it completely unbelievable that they now acted on their own with such speed and cunning.
This man hit the ground running:
Allawi wants more authority for the Governing Council.
Allawi wants direct control over Iraq's armed forces.
Allawi wants to have a say in the selection of the ministers who will form the new government of Iraq.
Allawi wants his government to have full authority over Iraq's security and economy.
And, Allawi plans to be a candidate in the January 2005 elections.
Forget Brahimi, forget interim government and I suspect, forget elections in 2005.
My paranoia is running at full steam:
Was the earlier US leak a misdirection?
Was Iyad Allawi the main choice all along?
Was this a CIA manipulation?
Does Iraq now have a new strongman at the head, one favourably inclined towards the USA?
Have we all just watched a well-executed dictator swap?
I've been reading up on this new iterim premier of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, and alarm bells are ringing in my head. This man is known to be agressive (as a student he once forced his fellow students into striking by threatening them with a machine gun) and he has the full backing of the CIA, he has been 'their man' for years.
The Governing Council members generally need a map to find themselves, I find it completely unbelievable that they now acted on their own with such speed and cunning.
This man hit the ground running:
Allawi wants more authority for the Governing Council.
Allawi wants direct control over Iraq's armed forces.
Allawi wants to have a say in the selection of the ministers who will form the new government of Iraq.
Allawi wants his government to have full authority over Iraq's security and economy.
And, Allawi plans to be a candidate in the January 2005 elections.
Forget Brahimi, forget interim government and I suspect, forget elections in 2005.
My paranoia is running at full steam:
Was the earlier US leak a misdirection?
Was Iyad Allawi the main choice all along?
Was this a CIA manipulation?
Does Iraq now have a new strongman at the head, one favourably inclined towards the USA?
Have we all just watched a well-executed dictator swap?
Iraq
I've been reading up on this new iterim premier of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, and alarm bells are ringing in my head. This man is known to be agressive (as a student he once forced his fellow students into striking by threatening them with a machine gun) and he has the full backing of the CIA, he has been 'their man' for years.
The Governing Council members generally need a map to find themselves, I find it completely unbelievable that they now acted on their own with such speed and cunning.
This man hit the ground running:
Allawi wants more authority for the Governing Council.
Allawi wants direct control over Iraq's armed forces.
Allawi wants to have a say in the selection of the ministers who will form the new government of Iraq.
Allawi wants his government to have full authority over Iraq's security and economy.
And, Allawi plans to be a candidate in the January 2005 elections.
Forget Brahimi, forget interim government and I suspect, forget elections in 2005.
My paranoia is running at full steam:
Was the earlier US leak a misdirection?
Was Iyad Allawi the main choice all along?
Was this a CIA manipulation?
Does Iraq now have a new strongman at the head, one favourably inclined towards the USA?
Have we all just watched a well-executed dictator swap?
I've been reading up on this new iterim premier of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, and alarm bells are ringing in my head. This man is known to be agressive (as a student he once forced his fellow students into striking by threatening them with a machine gun) and he has the full backing of the CIA, he has been 'their man' for years.
The Governing Council members generally need a map to find themselves, I find it completely unbelievable that they now acted on their own with such speed and cunning.
This man hit the ground running:
Allawi wants more authority for the Governing Council.
Allawi wants direct control over Iraq's armed forces.
Allawi wants to have a say in the selection of the ministers who will form the new government of Iraq.
Allawi wants his government to have full authority over Iraq's security and economy.
And, Allawi plans to be a candidate in the January 2005 elections.
Forget Brahimi, forget interim government and I suspect, forget elections in 2005.
My paranoia is running at full steam:
Was the earlier US leak a misdirection?
Was Iyad Allawi the main choice all along?
Was this a CIA manipulation?
Does Iraq now have a new strongman at the head, one favourably inclined towards the USA?
Have we all just watched a well-executed dictator swap?
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Iraq
Oh my, this is fascinating: both the US and UN were outmanoeuvred!
First, Brahimi gets to choose the new interim PM of Iraq. The job has actually been offered to someone already, he just has not accepted the job offer yet.
Then the US state department tries to pre-empt the process by leaking the name of their own personal favourite, Hussain Shahristani. Some influential Shia ex-exiles indicate quite clearly they wont stand for him and the UN rebels, so Shahristani pulls back and says he wont do the job.
Then, out of the blue, the Governing Council has a meeting and a vote, and BOOM! comes up with Iyad Allawi, blindsiding both the UN and the US.
WOW! hah!
Oh my, this is fascinating: both the US and UN were outmanoeuvred!
First, Brahimi gets to choose the new interim PM of Iraq. The job has actually been offered to someone already, he just has not accepted the job offer yet.
Then the US state department tries to pre-empt the process by leaking the name of their own personal favourite, Hussain Shahristani. Some influential Shia ex-exiles indicate quite clearly they wont stand for him and the UN rebels, so Shahristani pulls back and says he wont do the job.
Then, out of the blue, the Governing Council has a meeting and a vote, and BOOM! comes up with Iyad Allawi, blindsiding both the UN and the US.
WOW! hah!
Iraq
Oh my, this is fascinating: both the US and UN were outmanoeuvred!
First, Brahimi gets to choose the new interim PM of Iraq. The job has actually been offered to someone already, he just has not accepted the job offer yet.
Then the US state department tries to pre-empt the process by leaking the name of their own personal favourite, Hussain Shahristani. Some influential Shia ex-exiles indicate quite clearly they wont stand for him and the UN rebels, so Shahristani pulls back and says he wont do the job.
Then, out of the blue, the Governing Council has a meeting and a vote, and BOOM! comes up with Iyad Allawi, blindsiding both the UN and the US.
WOW! hah!
Oh my, this is fascinating: both the US and UN were outmanoeuvred!
First, Brahimi gets to choose the new interim PM of Iraq. The job has actually been offered to someone already, he just has not accepted the job offer yet.
Then the US state department tries to pre-empt the process by leaking the name of their own personal favourite, Hussain Shahristani. Some influential Shia ex-exiles indicate quite clearly they wont stand for him and the UN rebels, so Shahristani pulls back and says he wont do the job.
Then, out of the blue, the Governing Council has a meeting and a vote, and BOOM! comes up with Iyad Allawi, blindsiding both the UN and the US.
WOW! hah!
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Iraq
Terrorist, that is such an interesting word. I heard part of the Bush speech and it is again pretty obvious to me how the link is made between Al Quaeda and (the resistance in) Iraq, by often using the term terrorist and by mentioning the Al Quaeda attacks in other parts of the world and linking them to the military activities in Iraq... it leads people to the wrong conclusions, plants the image in their heads. No wonder such a large percentage of Americans fully believe Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terror!
Our agenda in contrast is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East we also make our own country more secure.
Americans have seen the flames of Sept. 11, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan and learned new terms like orange alert and ricin and dirty bomb. We've seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, in a synagogue in Tunis and a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughter in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.
I also think using the word sovereign is misleading when it comes to the so-called transfer of power in about one month. If the Americans remain fully in charge of all matters regarding security, there simply is no Iraqi sovereignty at all. I find the entire process very lacking in transparency, it is window dressing and not much more.
Fascinating, isn't it, though, that he chose to give this particular speech at the Army War College. Only a few months back, they published a report calling this war a 'strategic error'.
Terrorist, that is such an interesting word. I heard part of the Bush speech and it is again pretty obvious to me how the link is made between Al Quaeda and (the resistance in) Iraq, by often using the term terrorist and by mentioning the Al Quaeda attacks in other parts of the world and linking them to the military activities in Iraq... it leads people to the wrong conclusions, plants the image in their heads. No wonder such a large percentage of Americans fully believe Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terror!
Our agenda in contrast is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East we also make our own country more secure.
Americans have seen the flames of Sept. 11, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan and learned new terms like orange alert and ricin and dirty bomb. We've seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, in a synagogue in Tunis and a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughter in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.
I also think using the word sovereign is misleading when it comes to the so-called transfer of power in about one month. If the Americans remain fully in charge of all matters regarding security, there simply is no Iraqi sovereignty at all. I find the entire process very lacking in transparency, it is window dressing and not much more.
Fascinating, isn't it, though, that he chose to give this particular speech at the Army War College. Only a few months back, they published a report calling this war a 'strategic error'.
Iraq
Terrorist, that is such an interesting word. I heard part of the Bush speech and it is again pretty obvious to me how the link is made between Al Quaeda and (the resistance in) Iraq, by often using the term terrorist and by mentioning the Al Quaeda attacks in other parts of the world and linking them to the military activities in Iraq... it leads people to the wrong conclusions, plants the image in their heads. No wonder such a large percentage of Americans fully believe Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terror!
Our agenda in contrast is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East we also make our own country more secure.
Americans have seen the flames of Sept. 11, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan and learned new terms like orange alert and ricin and dirty bomb. We've seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, in a synagogue in Tunis and a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughter in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.
I also think using the word sovereign is misleading when it comes to the so-called transfer of power in about one month. If the Americans remain fully in charge of all matters regarding security, there simply is no Iraqi sovereignty at all. I find the entire process very lacking in transparency, it is window dressing and not much more.
Fascinating, isn't it, though, that he chose to give this particular speech at the Army War College. Only a few months back, they published a report calling this war a 'strategic error'.
Terrorist, that is such an interesting word. I heard part of the Bush speech and it is again pretty obvious to me how the link is made between Al Quaeda and (the resistance in) Iraq, by often using the term terrorist and by mentioning the Al Quaeda attacks in other parts of the world and linking them to the military activities in Iraq... it leads people to the wrong conclusions, plants the image in their heads. No wonder such a large percentage of Americans fully believe Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terror!
Our agenda in contrast is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East we also make our own country more secure.
Americans have seen the flames of Sept. 11, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan and learned new terms like orange alert and ricin and dirty bomb. We've seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, in a synagogue in Tunis and a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughter in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.
I also think using the word sovereign is misleading when it comes to the so-called transfer of power in about one month. If the Americans remain fully in charge of all matters regarding security, there simply is no Iraqi sovereignty at all. I find the entire process very lacking in transparency, it is window dressing and not much more.
Fascinating, isn't it, though, that he chose to give this particular speech at the Army War College. Only a few months back, they published a report calling this war a 'strategic error'.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
