Log in

View Full Version : U$ to allow Saddam's party into government



Intifada
22nd April 2004, 20:19
The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions.

The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq.

There also have been complaints that the ban has kept teachers, engineers, well-trained technocrats and experienced military officers out of the difficult postwar transition.

Saddam headed the Baath Party in Iraq for decades, and its members were allowed educational opportunities and to hold key posts.

In Baghdad, Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor acknowledged the ban "sometimes excludes innocent, capable people who were Baathists in name only from playing a role in reconstructing Iraq.

"Those are the sorts of people for which there was a process built in to allow exceptions, to allow appeals, but the exceptions and appeals process doesn't do anybody any good if it is not expeditious," Senor said.

"We are reviewing the policy to see if we can better balance the expertise and experience," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Air Force One as President Bush traveled to Maine for an Earth Day event.

The coalition calls the process of removing the pro-Saddam Baathists' influence on Iraq "de-Baathification."

Senor said: "What we are looking at now is a way to ... make revisions to the implementation process so the implementation process going forward reflects the original intention of the policy ... in terms of who is de-Baathified, what the criteria is, that policy remains intact."

Saying "part of Iraq freeing itself from its past is getting de-Baathification right," Senor noted there have been complaints that the appeals process for people blocked from qualifying for posts because of alleged Baathist affiliation "is sometimes slower in implementation that it was originally designed."

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, speaking at a news conference with Senor, said that as the Iraqi military grows, it will need experienced high-ranking officers, and there are many senior officers who can meet all of the de-Baathification criteria.

"You're going to need generals. You're going to need full colonels. You're going to need senior officers to command and control those organizations. Obviously, that is not a skill level that you can get in a series of weeks," Kimmitt said.

from CNN.

Invader Zim
22nd April 2004, 20:35
Ohh god they haven't...

The whole lot of them were as bad as saddam, you cant run a dictatorship like his without cronies... and now the US wants to put them back in power, which has just nulled my entire reason for actually supporting the war in the first place.

Great

Dirty Commie
23rd April 2004, 12:17
This is going to screw things up... enough Iraqis are violently opposed to the Baathists that this could cause a civil war. And the Baath party has enough support to possibly win one...which could lead to more amerikan intervention.

Yes it helps make the transition to a "democratic" state, but this is worse than allowing former Taliban officials into the Afghan government.

RedAnarchist
23rd April 2004, 12:31
Its just more proof that America couldnt care less about Iraq or Iraqis. They just wanted the oil, and will soon have full control over Iraq's oilfields

Dirty Commie
23rd April 2004, 12:59
I hate the Baath party, but if it means that the usa will stop meddling in Iraq's affairs, than I hope they gain power.

But I find it highly unlikely that they will ever gain enough power to make an impact in Iraq's national politics.

Misodoctakleidist
23rd April 2004, 15:54
De-Baathification :lol: what idiots!

Intifada
23rd April 2004, 18:01
i thought they liberated the iraqi people from the big bad baathists?

i guess i was wrong. i never supported this war. you just cannot trust the u$a.

BuyOurEverything
23rd April 2004, 21:27
As much as I dislike the Baathists, there are far worse people accepted in the Iraqi government. It's hypocritical to ban the Baathists.

antieverything
23rd April 2004, 21:30
You guys are idiots. The de-baathification would exclude pretty much tons of educated professionals from participating in reconstruction. Remember that Iraq was modeled after the Stalinist USSR...you join the party if you want to go anywhere in life, not if you agree with its principles. Do you really think Germany would have gone anywhere if anyone who collaborated with the Nazis was purged? Hell no, because almost everyone had to collaborate to maintain their station.

Capitalist Imperial
23rd April 2004, 22:40
All former Baathists re-admitted to the new Iraq government will go through checks for a clean record. Many of these individuals were merely government workers who happend to be working for the Baath party, as there was no other choice. They are probably as happy about changes in Iraq as anyone (well, now that they can work again, of course).

They will be working under new rules and a new government. The Baathist aspect is really irrelevant. It is the experience that the coalition is looking for, and in the long run this will be very beneficial to the reconstruction of Iraq.

It is funny how leftists complain about the progress of reconstruction in Iraq, but when the coalition does the a very logical thing and gets experience back into the ranks to help expedite the recovery, then you have a problem with that too.

Incredible.

Red Skyscraper
24th April 2004, 17:07
Well, the U&#036; came full circle. They tried eliminating the Baathists "to spread democracy," now they&#39;re re-instating the Baathists "to spread democracy." Pathetic, but then again, this is the U&#036;A. <_< :rolleyes:

Misodoctakleidist
24th April 2004, 17:17
Why does CI always sound like a spokesperson for the US governemnt?

BuyOurEverything
24th April 2004, 17:20
Why do people here oppose the Baathists more than the Islamic fundamentalist insurgents?

CI and AE are right (except about Iraq being modelled on the USSR, that&#39;s bs), there are plenty of good, qualified people in the Baath party.

Intifada
24th April 2004, 17:27
Why do people here oppose the Baathists more than the Islamic fundamentalist insurgents?

the recent insurgency may have been encouraged and fought by islamic fundamentalists, but they are fighting against something we should all be against: imperialism.

BuyOurEverything
24th April 2004, 17:48
So what does that mean ihatebush? I hate the US troops in Iraq as much as the next guy, but I hate islamic fundamentalist fighters just as much, if not more.

Shredder
24th April 2004, 17:55
(except about Iraq being modelled on the USSR, that&#39;s bs),

I wouldn&#39;t be too sure about that, Hussein even stole Stalin&#39;s mustache.

Intifada
24th April 2004, 17:56
So what does that mean ihatebush? I hate the US troops in Iraq as much as the next guy, but I hate islamic fundamentalist fighters just as much, if not more.

so you support the u&#036; in their attempt at crushing the resistance?

BuyOurEverything
24th April 2004, 17:58
No, but neither do I support the &#39;resistance&#39; in their attempt to create an Islamic state. It&#39;s not a clear cut situation. I would theoretically support the &#39;crushing&#39; of the &#39;resistance,&#39; however, if it is done by the US, Iraq will be no better than if the&#39;resistance&#39; won.

Intifada
24th April 2004, 17:59
No, but neither do I support the &#39;resistance&#39; in their attempt to create an Islamic state. It&#39;s not a clear cut situation.

fair enough. but if the iraqi people wished to have an islamic state, would you allow it?

BuyOurEverything
24th April 2004, 18:02
Well, I&#39;m not in a position to &#39;allow&#39; or &#39;disallow&#39; anything, but the real question is would I support it? The answer is no, because I feel it would be a knee jerk reaction to US imperialism and would be terrible in the long run, and, for that matter, in the short run too. Also, not all Iraqis would ever want a theocracy.

Intifada
25th April 2004, 15:19
i myself would not support an islamic fundamentalist state in iraq. but if the majority of iraqis wanted to have such a state then that is their choice. who are we to force them into taking up islam or communism?