US Transfers Sovereignty to Iraq Early
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/in...D-IRAQ.html?hp

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 28 — In a surprise, secret ceremony that was hastily convened to decrease the chances of more violence, United States officials today handed over sovereignty to Iraqi leaders, formally ending the American occupation two days earlier than scheduled.

Who knows what will happen. Hopefully the rulers will be able to put some weight on the people and bring discipline and law back to the region quickly.

-Rudey

Re: US Transfers Sovereignty to Iraq Early
 

This was a good move. I don't know if it will deter any planned attacks, but I hope it works in taking some of the propaganda value away.

Of course if it does stop some attacks, all the better.

Glad to hear this. U.S. troops need to get out of there...

You are correct, but unfortunately that won't and shouldn't happen soon. To do this right, the troops will be in Iraq for the long haul. Handing the reigns over two days early won't make much of a difference there.

As we learned with the fall of South Vietnam, we can't just pull our troops out and create a security vacuum and expect the new government to survive.

I'm for getting our troops out as soon as possible, but not at the expense of throwing away everything we have achieved.

Although, I agree with the principle that we shouldn't pull out, I think the comparisons to Vietnam are pretty unfair. The opposition in Vietnam was MUCH more large scale and much more organized.

People are drawing too many parallells to the action in the Middle East that just aren't justified.

We were also ten years into the conflict and had lost 50,000 troops.

Whether the comparison is totally valid or not, the possibility of the same outcome should be considered.

Well I guess I just have a problem with troops being there when it seems painfully obvious that they aren't wanted. How many more people have to die??

Who says they're not wanted?

It's easy to make statements like that but when you look at it are they against America or do they just want stability and feel that Americans haven't brought it to them?

-Rudey

I think they want stability that America cannot provide. And it just happens that the majority of the troops are American.

Who and what would provide this stability and will us leaving contribute to that?

People expect so much but it's not like Rome was built in a day.

-Rudey

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...l/28letter.jpg

President Bush, who was in Istanbul for a NATO meeting, received this note from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday. His response is on the left in darker ink.

-Rudey