Reply #126: Interesting post

[Jack Rabbit]

There has in fact been strikes against oil fields in Iraq by those resisting the colonial occupation. There has been ethnic violence in the last year.

Oh, and the Security Council vote? Do you really take that seriously?

Of course the June 30 "deadline" for turning over Iraqi "sovereignty" is going to be met. That's because no sovereignty is being turned over to Iraq, nor was that ever planned. Even with the concessions made by the US in the resolution, the idea that this is full sovereignty is a joke. The interim government got a few rights on paper, but it's still made up of neocon flunkies who won't do anything but lick the masta's boots. The Prime Minister is still the author of the missiles-ready-in-45-minutes fable.

When an Iraqi government that is responsible to the Iraqi people rather than neocons in Washington takes control of affairs, passes laws without consulting the American embassy, sells its national resources to whom it pleases and can tell foreign troops to go home, then Iraq will have full sovereignty. Right now, a government of quislings sits in Baghdad that cannot repeal the decrees of the colonial viceroy and won't tell foreign troops to leave.

Some sovereignty. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want the occupation to end and even after June 30 a US-led multinational force of 160,000 troops will use "all necessary measures" to bring "peace" (i.e., continue to enforce the neocon's will on Iraq). As occupation goes, that still passes the duck test.

The Left has said that the Bushies would never allow democracy in Iraq. The arrangement authorized by the Security Council does nothing to promote democracy. It was another self-inflicted wound by the UN. Like Congressional Democrats after September 11, the UN has no spine.

There is no sovereignty. The occupation continues. So will resistance to it.

Nothing has changed.