Yes you read that right, we profess invading and killing to spread democracy, but it’s just Hypocracy baby. Case in point Iraq- I remember Blair extremely smugly saying several times that as ‘we’ were there by invitation of the ‘democratically’ elected govt (puppet administration as installed per any invasion and I think he whimsically fancied that this ‘invitation’ somehow traveled back in time and invited us to invade in the first place) thus he shrugged his wee little shoulders, any disagreement with our forces being their should be taken up with the Iraqis -apparently begging us to be there- nothing to do with me guv. Thus Blair glided on with the aspect of someone who had just slam dunked (oh the intelligence!) the questioner and their evil anti war impertinence AND the responsibility was not his, no blood on his hands, this is a humanitarian mission mate, you want us out, why you’re as bad as Saddam! You hate democracy, the UN says it’s legal, you democracy hater, h8tr, h8tr, ner ner nerner ner!
Except…when the parliament want a say in the occupation and ending it, puppet Maliki, the US, the UK using the UN security council cut the parliament out so no embarrassing actual democracy interrupts the occupation. Spreading hypocracy-
The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It’s an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it’s in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq’s nascent democracy.
In 2006, Maliki’s office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law.
In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president had 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically became a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto and the resolution became the law of the land in mid-June 2007.
Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon’s latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a “nonbinding resolution”
One might have believed that the disconnect was a simple mistake, if not for the fact that members of the Iraqi parliament, still fuming over being cut out of the process the year before, sent a letter to the U.N.’s special envoy for Iraq back in April clarifying the situation in very clear terms.
According to sources within the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, the letter, signed by 144 MPs –more than half of Iraq’s legislators — was received in good order by the special envoy, Ashraf Qazi, but never distributed to the Security Council members, as is required under the U.N. resolution that governs the mandate. The parliament, and indeed the majority of the Iraqi population, had been cleanly excised from the legislative process.
This U.N. mandate issue is not occurring in a vacuum. When it comes to the nascent Iraqi government, supporters of the occupation have long had their cake and eaten it too. On the one hand, they deny that the U.S.-led military force is an occupying army at all, maintaining that all those foreign troops are there at the “request” of the Iraqi government. That’s an important legal nicety — occupying forces have a host of responsibilities under international law and acknowledging the reality of the occupation would result in more legal responsibilities for the administration to ignore. At the same time, when the only people who all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters actually elected to office try to attach some conditions to the U.N. mandate, demand a timetable for withdrawal or come out against privatizing Iraq’s natural resources, then somehow the legislature magically disappears and the hopes and aspirations of its constituents are discarded as if they never existed.