A Few Short, Quick Blurbs

[hobbes]

Wow, those 2 days would have wrapped all this up.

Way to turn a definite step in the right direction into another vast conspiracy theory.

Actually, it is rather predictable.

Most would have bet the US would have found a way to delay transfer, most are convinced this is was an imperialistic occupation. Hand it back early, and suddenly it is all about oil money. Whatever.

The turn-over is symbolic, I am anxious to see what this really means.

The insurgents have killed more Iraqi citizens than anything else. They have killed Russian and German workers attempting to restore electricity. Those workers have left and electricity shortages are a major source of discontent in Iraq.

These insurgents were never fighting for any cause for Iraq's sake, as some will lead you to believe, they are foreigners hoping to keep the country in chaos.

[Rat Faced]

Wherever there are large sums of money and less than perfect controls...some will go missing.

Thats why I copied the article for info, but didnt consider it worthwhile commenting on...

It doesnt matter who was in control of it...If the vatican had it all with inadequate controls, some will go astray...

Most would have bet the US would have found a way to delay transfer, most are convinced this is was an imperialistic occupation. Hand it back early, and suddenly it is all about oil money. Whatever.

Erm... theres no "suddenly" about it.... The arguments about it being about Oil is as old as the actual threat of war..

And, as you say...its a symolic handover only... we're still there, and for all practical purposes, still in control.

The one thing i can garantee is... its not "imperialistic occupation". There may well be an attempt to put control into Pro- US hands, but that is not "Imperialistic"..the USA dont intend to openly own the country, as that would destabilise more than just the Middle East

[hobbes]

The "suddenly" comes from the pointing to an early turn-over as being driven by a specific oil money generated reconstruction fund. This is distinct from the over-all "oil" issue.

To assume that the early turnover was made simply to impede an investigation into money meant to be spend on the reconstruction of Iraq, is at best, pessimistic.

A way to look a positive step in the most negative of ways. It was a good day, and a step in the right direction. The explanation posted by yourself and Lynx is again, nothing but agenda driven "rain on the parade".

As for what this means, as an Iraqi, I would view it as symbolic until the last US soldier departs from my country.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by hobbes@28 June 2004 - 21:26
The "suddenly" comes from the pointing to an early turn-over as being driven by a specific oil money generated reconstruction fund. This is distinct from the over-all "oil" issue.

To assume that the early turnover was made simply to impede an investigation into money meant to be spend on the reconstruction of Iraq, is at best, pessimistic.

A way to look a positive step in the most negative of ways. It was a good day, and a step in the right direction. The explanation posted by yourself and Lynx is again, nothing but agenda driven "rain on the parade".

As for what this means, as an Iraqi, I would view it as symbolic until the last US soldier departs from my country.

I think it just as likely that it was an early handover to frustrate any Violence that was planned for the 30th

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+28 June 2004 - 19:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 28 June 2004 - 19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@28 June 2004 - 21:26
The "suddenly" comes from the pointing to an early turn-over as being driven by a specific oil money generated reconstruction fund. This is distinct from the over-all "oil" issue.

To assume that the early turnover was made simply to impede an investigation into money meant to be spend on the reconstruction of Iraq, is at best, pessimistic.

A way to look a positive step in the most negative of ways. It was a good day, and a step in the right direction. The explanation posted by yourself and Lynx is again, nothing but agenda driven "rain on the parade".

As for what this means, as an Iraqi, I would view it as symbolic until the last US soldier departs from my country.

I think it just as likely that it was an early handover to frustrate any Violence that was planned for the 30th [/b][/quote]
That is the possibility that I was considering as well.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@28 June 2004 - 15:59
The insurgents have killed more Iraqi citizens than anything else.&nbsp;

What insurgents are you speaking about, Hobbes?

I thought they were all Iraqis.

Maybe the poor Iraqis are still well-off enough to hire their dissatisfaction done for them, eh?