• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Washington warns Iraq to accept security deal

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
-snip-
Yes a dictator could do so much better. Saddam ;)

Also it seems you are arguing against that which we have, democracy and balance of power. Just my opinion from your words.
Originally posted by: Genx87
All the above factors give each and every faction within the government (parliment) a lot of power with negotiations amongst each other. Without the various factions support, Maliki can do nothing, nor can any one faction (or small coalition of factions). This framework is a clusterf**k of unique proportions - an exceedingly difficult enviroment for achieving anything but squabbling.
I think you missed the beauty of it. They modeled something after our own govt :D
I agree there is a similarity. However we just need to get 2 parties working together to agree on a treaty etc. (assuming one party doesn't have an overwhelming majority, in which case only one party is enough)

They've got a lot more parties: Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Then there are difference within these groups creating many conflicting agendas.

Fern
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And a more specific agreement between Iraqi people and our new commander and chief may or may not be possible in the near term of calender year 2009, but our new President should not be restrained by any last minute agreements made by GWB.
Sounds like Bush thinking he shouldn't be restrained by the Kyoto protocol. Lefties weren't happy.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
Nemesis, the cause of peace is not going to be advanced by some unrealistic agreement forced down Iraqi throats, if anything it will impede the path to a lasting settlement.
I don't believe we're in a position to force anything down anyone's throat.

I don't think we're trying to either. Sure, we have some things that are pretty much non-negotiable (e.g., our military under their court juridiction).

My guess is that it's mostly been dragged out as the different factions seek concessions from one another, with the Dec 31st deadline used as a threat of sorts.

Hypothetical example - Do the Kurds care if we must quickly pullout on 12/31? I doubt it, their area has no problems (or very very little). Think the Sunni's in Baghdad want us to stay a little longer to help ensure the safety? I do.

And the Kurds want more control over the oil fields in their area, the rest of Iraq currently say no. Maybe the Kurds can threaten to hold out unless the Sunni's agree to support them in their demands.

I suspect a lot of people are using the 12/31 deadline as a way to play *chicken* in order to get concessions they want from one another.

Just my guess.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS