Thank you America...

[magomago]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089872.stm

Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki has criticised US forces for failing to hand over for execution three former prominent figures in Saddam Hussein's regime.

Ah yes The Iranian agent is mad that he can't get revenge on more of Saddam's Govt. You'd think he would have been satisfied after the joke called the "Saddam Hussein Trial". Of course he is like Bush - it is his way..or the highway.

Just ask Sabrine Al-Janabi who claimed how "security forces" raped her and had the guts to admit it on television - not even 24 hours later, Al Maliki already claimed to have opened AND completed an investigation and then AWARDED the men medals

The three, including Ali Hassan "Chemical Ali" al-Majid, were condemned to death for the campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

There has been division in the Iraqi leadership over the executions and the US says it is waiting for consensus.

I WONDER WHY THERE IS DIVISION. These courts are just about as much of a "joke" as any of Saddam's were!

There is suspicion the US does not want ex-defence chief Sultan Hashim to hang.

It is on the former defence minister, one of Majid's alleged accomplices, that the controversy is focused.

The death sentences on the three were upheld by an appeals court in September.

Under Iraqi law, the three men should then have been hanged within 30 days.

Good law - silence your enemies as fast as possible...kinda reminds me of a guy with the name "S" and last name "H". Of course he was in the middle of a War...against another country - and I guess it makes sense since Al Maliki and his supporters is at war with Iraq.

But the verdict should also have been approved by the three-man presidential council and that is where the issue turned into a major political row.

'Incensed'

President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd himself, opposes the death penalty in principle.

Ali Hassan al-Majid
"Chemical Ali" is the cousin of late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein

One of his two vice-presidents, Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni, is particularly incensed by the death sentence on Sultan Hashim and has threatened to resign if it is carried out.

So you have a Kurd and an Arab saying "HOLD ON"....yet the Iranian agent is cheering to get him hanged. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmm, I'm glad we finally used that switch in our brains to say "wait a minute...what is going on!"

The Americans, who are physically holding the three convicted men, have refrained from handing them over to Mr Maliki's Shia-led government for execution.

Now Mr Maliki has lashed out at them, accusing the US embassy of dragging its feet and causing a violation of the constitution.

He insists all three men should be delivered for execution.

There is a strong suspicion the US is reluctant to see the former defence minister hang.

It has been widely reported that he was in touch with the CIA during Saddam Hussein's rule and took part in plots to unseat him.

Sultan Hashim's supporters, Sunnis and others, say that like many others at the time he was simply obeying orders and not driving policy.

Of course we have our own reasons - apparantly he was slightly sympathetic to US interests (although does that necessarily mean US and Iraqi interests were the same?).

The point is clear though - Maliki has never been shown to be a representative of the Iraqi people. We talk about trying to instill democracy, yet even in these courts there is a lack of any basic procedures. There are hundreds of other problems - and many filter up to his "office". When will we simply admit Iraq needs to be re invaded and their government needs to be removed?
Iraq right now is not run by Iraqis at all: it is run by Iranian interests, and our troops are stuck there firing at anything that moves because we don't know exactly what the hell is going on.

No matter the reason - I commend the military for not handing over the men for execution on the basis that there is no such thing as a "fair trial" over there...and I think its amazing we let the "clown show" continue with Saddam when it was so obvious they were trying as hard as possible to kill him.

I'm still not for attacks on Iran...but perhaps we should consider the obvious and leave the Interior of Iraq to the Iraqis and then plug up the Iranian border. We'll see how much Iran can meddle when all supply lines are cut off and any other method of contact is being constantly harassed by us.
Of course - that would require trying NOT to fracture Iraq...something this Bush Admin isn't willing to compromise on.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't necessarily agree with with your solution and several of your contentions but this type of dialogue is what is needed to solve many of our problems in this area of the ME - and most people (especially here at P&N) aren't willing to engage in discussing it because it requires them to think, educate themselves and eliminate the bias inherent within.

. . . because we don't know exactly what the hell is going on . . .

Yup. It's a PR campaign versus a psy-ops operation versus a reality check.

... I guess it makes sense since Al Maliki and his supporters is at war with Iraq . . .

Well, no. Why do you turn to this '...get the democraticly-elected Al Maliki ...' posture?

Al Maliki is the central figure or fulcrum who actually has succeeded with his balancing act . You fail to acknowledge that Al Maliki and his vision for Iraq has much, much more in common with the of the people of Iraq and their needs, and with the State of Iran, than with his other neighbors - and certainly the USA, our foreign policy and the obfuscation of the last 20 years.

The most obvious example is of course, OIL. The nationalized oil industry of Iran (complete with those pesky light water reactors to generate domestic electricity) is an excellect model for Iraq to emulate - not the PSAs for the corporate foreign nationals (i.e., BIG OIL) that effectively claim 70% of Iraq's national resources.

Shias in Iraq have much more in common with their brethren in Iran and are potentially more secular. This is effectively the case with the Kurds (whose problems are a whole different thread) and currently the de facto case with with the Shia in the south of Iraq (who are directly aligned with the Shia in Iran).

Al Maliki has effectively (possibly temporarily) contained Al-Sadr and his militias, and as a result Sadr has bought into the political process. I believe this fact moreso than The Surge has led to the reduction in violence in Iraq; that and the fact that Saudi-backed Sunni extremists are no longer flowing into Iraq.

... So you have a Kurd and an Arab saying "HOLD ON"....yet the Iranian agent is cheering to get him hanged. . . .

Is this a psy-op? :shocked:

I will consent that your contention of the Iraqi justice system is a 'dog and pony show' is correct but your connection to these trials with that of Saddam's is specious at best. The basis for all this mess comes down to one thing: the colossus failures of the NeoCons and George Bush. The USA started the ""de-Baathification"" process, failed miserably, tried to institue ""re-Baathification"" and have failed miserably again.

So you blame Al Maliki for our failures? You blame Al Maliki because he is not a full-time lap-dog of US policy objectives? You blame Al Maliki because a CIA conspirator in Saddam's gov't (Sultan Hashim) was directly culpable in the deaths of thousands with Chemical Ali ?

You accuse Al Maliki of being an ""Iranian agent"" ? 😕

I will agree with one thing, however. The hangings need to stop. Not because Sultan Hashim was a CIA spook and Ali Hassan al-Majid was a turd - but because 20 years of US culpability and secrets goes to the graves with them.

It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

Brief, yet pointless.

Of course you will tell us where Chemical Ali got his toxics, won't yah Pabs? Maybe you will explain George HW Bush's Incubator Babies in the run-up to the Gulf War? Or perhaps you will explain, as Tony Snow once did, that 4,000 US deaths in Iraq is ""Just a number"" ??

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

Brief, yet pointless.

Of course you will tell us where Chemical Ali got his toxics, won't yah Pabs? Maybe you will explain George HW Bush's Incubator Babies in the run-up to the Gulf War? Or perhaps you will explain, as Tony Snow once did, that 4,000 US deaths in Iraq is ""Just a number"" ??

I'd venture a guess France supplied a large portion of those toxins.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: magomago


I'm still not for attacks on Iran...but perhaps we should consider the obvious and leave the Interior of Iraq to the Iraqis and then plug up the Iranian border. We'll see how much Iran can meddle when all supply lines are cut off and any other method of contact is being constantly harassed by us.

Won't do much good. Iran is a bit player in the weapons supply game in Iraq. The US is supplying the bulk of the weapons to all sides in Iraq. If the Bushies had any desire whatsoever to stabilize Iraq, they'd cut the arms flow. Right now the Bushies aren't getting their way so they're employing a chaos strategy and waiting until things look more opportune for their interests.

 

[yllus]

To me this raises the impossible question of what the U.S. should do in Iraq: Interfere with the political process when its feels that unfairness is occurring and be accused of hypocrisy, or stay out of matters entirely. Of the two for the moment I choose the former, but it really would be best if within the next year or two the U.S. pulled out of populated areas and just set up large bases in the desert to do interdiction and quick response.

 

[Lemon law]

I somewhat detect the hidden hand of Patraeus. Realizing that executing opponents may make some happy but angers others. And an execution just fuels the revenge cycle that is at the root of much of the Iraqi problems. Iraq can't heal until it turns its back on the revenges of the past and looks to a future based on reconciliation.

Good post magomago.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

Brief, yet pointless.

Of course you will tell us where Chemical Ali got his toxics, won't yah Pabs? Maybe you will explain George HW Bush's Incubator Babies in the run-up to the Gulf War? Or perhaps you will explain, as Tony Snow once did, that 4,000 US deaths in Iraq is ""Just a number"" ??

I'd venture a guess France supplied a large portion of those toxins.

The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.

The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.

The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

From: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: magomago


I'm still not for attacks on Iran...but perhaps we should consider the obvious and leave the Interior of Iraq to the Iraqis and then plug up the Iranian border. We'll see how much Iran can meddle when all supply lines are cut off and any other method of contact is being constantly harassed by us.

Won't do much good. Iran is a bit player in the weapons supply game in Iraq. The US is supplying the bulk of the weapons to all sides in Iraq. If the Bushies had any desire whatsoever to stabilize Iraq, they'd cut the arms flow. Right now the Bushies aren't getting their way so they're employing a chaos strategy and waiting until things look more opportune for their interests.

proof......or do you just know? rofl

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: magomago


I'm still not for attacks on Iran...but perhaps we should consider the obvious and leave the Interior of Iraq to the Iraqis and then plug up the Iranian border. We'll see how much Iran can meddle when all supply lines are cut off and any other method of contact is being constantly harassed by us.

Won't do much good. Iran is a bit player in the weapons supply game in Iraq. The US is supplying the bulk of the weapons to all sides in Iraq. If the Bushies had any desire whatsoever to stabilize Iraq, they'd cut the arms flow. Right now the Bushies aren't getting their way so they're employing a chaos strategy and waiting until things look more opportune for their interests.

proof......or do you just know? rofl

GAO: U.S. Arms Missing In Iraq
August 06, 2007

The Government Accountability Office recently reported that 30 percent of weapons, including AK-47 assault rifles and pistols, that the Pentagon allocated to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 are now unaccounted for. The approximately 190,000 weapons in question were distributed when the current top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, was overseeing Iraqi security training.

380 Tons of Explosives Missing in Iraq

The Iraqi interim government believes that more than 380 tons of dangerous explosives are missing from a military installation south of Baghdad, FOX News confirmed Monday.

Iraqi officials sent a letter to the IAEA on Oct. 10 to inform the agency that tons of HMX and RDX explosives were missing from the Al Qaqaa military installation south of Baghdad. Officials believe the material was looted following the fall of Saddam Hussein?s government in April 2003.

HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex ? substances so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.

Al Qaqaa, a sprawling former military installation about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was placed under U.S. military control but repeatedly has been looted, raising troubling questions about whether the missing explosives have fallen into the hands of insurgents battling coalition forces.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

Brief, yet pointless.

Of course you will tell us where Chemical Ali got his toxics, won't yah Pabs? Maybe you will explain George HW Bush's Incubator Babies in the run-up to the Gulf War? Or perhaps you will explain, as Tony Snow once did, that 4,000 US deaths in Iraq is ""Just a number"" ??

I'd venture a guess France supplied a large portion of those toxins.

The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.

The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.

The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

From: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

Do me a favor and find the WMD shipment info from all countries to Saddam.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: magomago


I'm still not for attacks on Iran...but perhaps we should consider the obvious and leave the Interior of Iraq to the Iraqis and then plug up the Iranian border. We'll see how much Iran can meddle when all supply lines are cut off and any other method of contact is being constantly harassed by us.

Won't do much good. Iran is a bit player in the weapons supply game in Iraq. The US is supplying the bulk of the weapons to all sides in Iraq. If the Bushies had any desire whatsoever to stabilize Iraq, they'd cut the arms flow. Right now the Bushies aren't getting their way so they're employing a chaos strategy and waiting until things look more opportune for their interests.

proof......or do you just know? rofl

Try to pay attention.
Shia - armed by US via Iraqi govt and Iraqi military.
Sunni - armed by US via police force.
Kurds - armed by US via Kurdish autonomous regional govt.

I guess there is a small Christian community in Iraq that we might not arm.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

Brief, yet pointless.

Of course you will tell us where Chemical Ali got his toxics, won't yah Pabs? Maybe you will explain George HW Bush's Incubator Babies in the run-up to the Gulf War? Or perhaps you will explain, as Tony Snow once did, that 4,000 US deaths in Iraq is ""Just a number"" ??

I'd venture a guess France supplied a large portion of those toxins.

The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.

The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.

The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

From: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

Do me a favor and find the WMD shipment info from all countries to Saddam.

That information is available by searching through 100s of UNSCOM reports.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

That information is available by searching through 100s of UNSCOM reports.

humor me

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Do me a favor and find the WMD shipment info from all countries to Saddam.

That information is available by searching through 100s of UNSCOM reports.

But I thought there were no WMDs.....😕

 

[dahunan]

:brokenheart:

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It's a Bush family thing to clean up all the ugly details of truth

We need a conspiracy moonbats forum.

Brief, yet pointless.

Of course you will tell us where Chemical Ali got his toxics, won't yah Pabs? Maybe you will explain George HW Bush's Incubator Babies in the run-up to the Gulf War? Or perhaps you will explain, as Tony Snow once did, that 4,000 US deaths in Iraq is ""Just a number"" ??

Fake satelitte images for Desert Storm also.. And US citizens wonder why other countries think we are terrorists.. Lying to our public so we can bomb and kill people

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

Do me a favor and find the WMD shipment info from all countries to Saddam.

That information is available by searching through 100s of UNSCOM reports.

But I thought there were no WMDs.....😕

Desert Storm ring a bell?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I don't necessarily agree with with your solution and several of your contentions but this type of dialogue is what is needed to solve many of our problems in this area of the ME - and most people (especially here at P&N) aren't willing to engage in discussing it because it requires them to think, educate themselves and eliminate the bias inherent within.[p/q]

10% agree :thumbsup:

Well, no. Why do you turn to this '...get the democraticly-elected Al Maliki ...' posture?

Al Maliki is the central figure or fulcrum who actually has succeeded with his balancing act . You fail to acknowledge that Al Maliki and his vision for Iraq has much, much more in common with the of the people of Iraq and their needs, and with the State of Iran, than with his other neighbors - and certainly the USA, our foreign policy and the obfuscation of the last 20 years.

I think it is where we differ on the facts.

The most obvious example is of course, OIL. The nationalized oil industry of Iran (complete with those pesky light water reactors to generate domestic electricity) is an excellect model for Iraq to emulate - not the PSAs for the corporate foreign nationals (i.e., BIG OIL) that effectively claim 70% of Iraq's national resources.

What is your point? Saddam nationalized the oil system so it wasn't like this is some new great idea that Al Maliki takes credit for. Al Maliki wants to split the way oil is dealt with.

Shias in Iraq have much more in common with their brethren in Iran and are potentially more secular. This is effectively the case with the Kurds (whose problems are a whole different thread) and currently the de facto case with with the Shia in the south of Iraq (who are directly aligned with the Shia in Iran).

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Tell me How Shi'ite Arabs have more in Common with Shi'ite Persians than with Sunni Arabs. This contradicts everything I know about Iraq about a country - and when it comes down to hearing it from the mouths of MANY Iraqis --> I have never heard such a thing whether they be family, people I've met, blogs I read about online, or even something as simple as news interviews (BBC does them quite a bit).
Now if you want to argue that Al Maliki - whom is part of a group that Iran actively financially supported for many years, who was part of the pathologically lying INC Iraqi National Congress - has less in common with the average Iraqi, I entirely agree. When it is seen that his close associates are people like Ibrahim al Jaffari who is also very closely tied to SCIRI. Go check out SCIRI's goals if you are interested.

I highly reccomend that you go check out riverbendblog (Which you probably have...she is pretty well spread on the intnernet). All her entires are superb, but since I read it yesterday her latest entry is the one that hits a point well:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

We live in an apartment building where two other Iraqis are renting. The people in the floor above us are a Christian family from northern Iraq who got chased out of their village by Peshmerga and the family on our floor is a Kurdish family who lost their home in Baghdad to militias and were waiting for immigration to Sweden or Switzerland or some such European refugee haven.

The first evening we arrived, exhausted, dragging suitcases behind us, morale a little bit bruised, the Kurdish family sent over their representative ? a 9 year old boy missing two front teeth, holding a lopsided cake, ?We?re Abu Mohammed?s house- across from you- mama says if you need anything, just ask- this is our number. Abu Dalia?s family live upstairs, this is their number. We?re all Iraqi too... Welcome to the building.?

I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003.

I'm not here to argue that Iraqis had it like roses - any country can have an array of religious strife or even cultural strife issues that it has dealt with. But the idea that Apparantly a group of Arabs in Iraq have MORE in common with Iranian Persians than other Arabs is simply not true.

Al Maliki has effectively (possibly temporarily) contained Al-Sadr and his militias, and as a result Sadr has bought into the political process. I believe this fact moreso than The Surge has led to the reduction in violence in Iraq; that and the fact that Saudi-backed Sunni extremists are no longer flowing into Iraq.

Sure I'll give you that...that still doesn't mean that he is looking for the best interests of Iraq. Although Sadr is a vehement supporter of a single unified Iraq, he also said he would defend Iran (its such a pity that he doesn't have the wisdom that his father carried...)

Is this a psy-op? :shocked:

I can't tell what your point is. Accusing me of being "Conspiracy theorist?" Nah.

I will consent that your contention of the Iraqi justice system is a 'dog and pony show' is correct but your connection to these trials with that of Saddam's is specious at best. The basis for all this mess comes down to one thing: the colossus failures of the NeoCons and George Bush. The USA started the ""de-Baathification"" process, failed miserably, tried to institue ""re-Baathification"" and have failed miserably again.

I'm suprised you think these aren't connected to the trials of Saddam. These trials are following in the same path that Saddam's went and for the same purposes - alleged crimes against humanity. I have no problem with the charges , but as you said a "dog and pony show" proves nothing. Saddam and his cohorts had it out for Al Maliki (Which is why Al Maliki fleed) and this is simply pay back. The number of times that Saddam's trial was stone walled, the number of times he was denied evidence, the ridiculous amount of B.S. that the trial followed show this. Even the options after the 'dog and pony show' are nearly limited - if you can't get your appeal done in thirty days you are sentenced for death no matter what. To be tried is simply to say "you are going to die. k thx bye".

I think a few things are getting mixed here:
a) what I "blame" on America is simply invading Iraq. That is all really. Nothing more, nothing less. We should have not gone in and create the power vacuum that came to be. All arguments on hold - Saddam was ultimately not the crazed monster we made him to be and IMO I have trouble seeing the difference between the government of Saddam and the government of China especially when it comes to actions -- except Saddam didn't pull off something as incredibly stupid as a cultural revolution.

b) I blame Al Maliki for helping to create a such conditions right now. He was simply a tool that rushed to gain power (Successfully) in that power vaccuum we created. He is the greatest denier of all time - you should take a look at videos of him talking about all the great and wonderful things happening and blaming 99% of the problems on "Irhabis" ie: "Terrorists"...whether or not it is about that. Its propaganda at its finest. His focus is NOT with the Iraqi people - the example of Sabrine al Janbi is a CLEAR case, the multiple reports and news articles talking about the police is simply becoming an arm of political parties ( *dough* Dawaa, of which he is a very influential learder) shows that the interests do NOT lie with Iraqis.
I'll consent to the point that its a little odd for me to call him an Iranian agent - and that is also fueled partially by irrational (i'll admit it 😉 ) hatred for him...there is an issue when there are such "warm" relations with Iran, when its clear Iran (note: I'm referring to the government) is stirring the pot is very porblematic. That doesn't mean I don't think Iran should not have good relations with Iraq- they should considering it is the longest border they share, and considering that both countries and people have a mixed history.

c) I blame the bush administration for purposely trying to fracture Iraq. This is their over riding goal and has been. I really believe that the majority of the troops on the ground are actually trying to help fix and ameliorate the situation...but with a political situation that is gone to hell there is very little that can be done in the way of fixing it. Al Maliki is NOT our friend insofar as an ally is concerned - but hell the man is either a) working to achieve interests that are by and large not in line with that of the Iraqi people or b) really that incompetent...but it doesn't matter because its aiding this administration's goal of fracturing Iraq(Whether he is aware or not...but I would think that its hard to be that incompetence. People with power would rather have us think they are incompetent instead of actually know what they are doing)...and it creates an ally of convenience

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: yllus
To me this raises the impossible question of what the U.S. should do in Iraq: Interfere with the political process when its feels that unfairness is occurring and be accused of hypocrisy, or stay out of matters entirely. Of the two for the moment I choose the former, but it really would be best if within the next year or two the U.S. pulled out of populated areas and just set up large bases in the desert to do interdiction and quick response.

What I would have said in the past:
I agree that they should get the hell out of populated areas. But what the US should do is simply let the Iraqis sort it out. With the US out of any populated area, and the US NOT supporting the government for the sake of having SOME kind of government...the Iraqi government would most likely fall again and something else would rise. The US shouldn't be, as ironwing puts it, being an arms supporter in any case.

We should get away from the desert and take it a step to the borders - because THAT is where the real problems are coming from.

What I say out:
just GTFO - whatever happens, happens.
If we HAVE to have the mentality that "we need to help in SOME form"... If Iran actually tries to make a move in Iraq to directly (ie: with troops) force a government - let some bombing begin. If supply convos are passing through (I have a hard time believing any supply convoy from Iran is going to contain flowers and cookies) - bomb it. A country can't solve its internal issues when external forces are meddling with it.