Iraqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraqi prime minister says U.S. troops can go 'anytime they want'

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

Some gratitude huh? Don't even know if the Republicans will wait until September to start going along with pulling the plug.

I did see that Maliki tried to backtrack but this should be a disaster for him, Maliki.

Aide: Iraqi PM's comments misconstrued

Don't know if this was posted anywhere else so I understand if it gets locked.

[/ QUOTE ]

A low-grade civil war is already in progress in Iraq. Maliki is on the side of the Shia majority and is favored by Iran. Whether the USA is there or not, the internal fighting between the factions will continue. It might explode more fully once the U.S. leaves, but that would very likely eventually happen anyway IMO.

It's also interesting that an al-Qaeda group in Iraq has very recently threatened to make war upon Iran itself if Iran does not cease its involvement in Iraq.

In my opinion, the big error of the administration was in thinking that democracy could be hastily exported to the Middle East (and by "democracy", I mean democracy with our types of individual rights and protections for minorities backed by via strong Constitutional basis).

As I read elsewhere recently, if most Iraqis deeply treasured the ideals of freedom of speech and religion, and of equality of all before the law, they'd be out hunting insurgents and terrorists down en masse and the USA wouldn't even need to be over there helping them with it.

Traditionally held values don't change overnight, and there are clearly some things that are more important to the average Iraqi than those ideals which are mentioned above.

I will acknowledge that I once thought the Neo-Con dogma attractive on the surface, but it appears increasingly obvious that the Middle East is far from ready for the hoped-for great revision of traditional priorities and values in that region, which revision would be necessary for a liberal constitutionally supported democracy to take root and survive.

A common refrain is: if the USA leaves, things will only get worse. That much seems obvious. That doesn't mean that things won't still get worse even if the USA stays in Iraq, though.

I've come to favor partition along ethnic lines in Iraq. These people just aren't ready to be forcibly integrated and aren't planning to "all just get along", no matter how strongly Bush thinks that that's precisely what they ought to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Why should the Iraqis be grateful, when what the USA is trying to establish isn't really what most of them want, anyway; and as bad as Saddam was, current conditions are arguably worse?

The USA did however help the Iraqis draft a Shari'a-supportive Constitution, though: for that deeply irresponsible and feckless act, the religious fanatics might properly be grateful (although we needn't expect it).

The Neo-Con crystal ball is broken but they keep staring into it with wide eyes, expecting good things to materialize. Why? Because they are inherently hopeful, and because the alternative is terrible to contemplate. Reality will not care one whit for their hopes and dreams, though.

As strifes and factional fighting grow in Iraq and across more and more of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the developments will quite possibly precurse the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and Armageddon. The scientifically-minded may scoff, but events are falling in line. The entire region is a slow-burning powder keg which is slowly igniting.

The Neo-Con wishful thinking may be the preferred hope, but the only thing that might actually solve the problems of the Middle East is for the entire region to ignite and for them to thrash it out amongst themselves. I don't think the USA will be able to stop that, anyway, and U.S. treasure and lives and energies may be better spent in preparing to weather and ride out the storm, than in what will likely prove to be a quixotic mission to avert it.

Thanks for reading this long-winded post, and all comments and observations welcome.

edit: I'm not sure if the comment by Maliki will hurt him much or not. He is firmly planted on the Shia side and anything he says that the religious Shia elements approve of, will probably help him in that regard as far as support, thereby possibly offsetting any other political damage thus incurred.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, the big error of the administration was in thinking that democracy could be hastily exported to the Middle East (and by "democracy", I mean democracy with our types of individual rights and protections for minorities backed by via strong Constitutional basis).


[/ QUOTE ]

the Bush doesn't want democracy in Iraq, with or without individual freedoms. Look at his involvement in the coup in venezuala. nuff said. You're 100% FOS.

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam was a homocidal maniac, but things were still better when he was in power.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is retarded. How many Iraqis died as a result of Saddam's noncompliance with the UN in 1990 and the resulting sanctions? How many Iraqis were directly killed by Saddam's regime? As screwed up as it is today, life is better for the average Iraqi.

[Copernicus]

American history should tell you that civil war has nothing to do with whether a country wants or is ready for democray.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saddam was a homocidal maniac, but things were still better when he was in power.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is retarded. How many Iraqis died as a result of Saddam's noncompliance with the UN in 1990 and the resulting sanctions? How many Iraqis were directly killed by Saddam's regime? As screwed up as it is today, life is better for the average Iraqi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this is true, why should we send American soldiers abroad to die in order to improve the life of the average Iraqi?

[adios]

A long and thoughtful post from John. I think it's clear at this point that the fight between the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq had been brewing for a long time and having Saddam in power delayed the inevitable. I wouldn't underestimate the role that Iraqs oil assets are playing in dividing these two factions. The oil is basically in Shiite and Kurdish areas. The Sunnis have a great deal of concern that they'll not get their fair share of the oil revenue and they have good reason to be concerned. No matter what SNOBALL and his ilk state, the U.S. gave the Iraqis an opportunity to establish a government that they would never have had as long as Hussein was in power. To that end they should be eternally grateful but apparently they're not at least the Sunnis and the Shiites apparently aren't. I think the Kurds are though.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
gratitude? are you insane? The Iraqis owe us NOTHING because they never consented to anything we have done to or for them. Furthermore, if you look at how things have been going the last four years, Iraqis have more to be angry about than happy about. Saddam was a homocidal maniac, but things were still better when he was in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 600,000+ number is widely disputed. It was an estimate done in a study by epidemiologists at John Hopkins University. Here's an article about the study and the researchers. Notice that the researchers really don't defend the number they came up with very strongly.

The Number

I think it's a balanced article and worth reading.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, the big error of the administration was in thinking that democracy could be hastily exported to the Middle East (and by "democracy", I mean democracy with our types of individual rights and protections for minorities backed by via strong Constitutional basis).


[/ QUOTE ]

the Bush doesn't want democracy in Iraq, with or without individual freedoms. Look at his involvement in the coup in venezuala. nuff said. You're 100% FOS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid you've lost me (regarding some coup in Venezuela??? What?)

I do think Bush believes in speading democracy, but he's terribly naive about the chances for success, and doesn't realize that democracy in the Middle East = the religious or ethnic majority dominating the religious or ethnic minority and individual freedoms be damned. Plain democracy in the Middle East = Shari'a law and oppression.

I'm not sure why you think Bush isn't sincere about it (I think he's deeply sincere, just woefully mistaken and misguided). I don't have the slightest idea what you are referencing regarding some coup in Venezuela.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
American history should tell you that civil war has nothing to do with whether a country wants or is ready for democray.



[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn't say that because of the low-grade civil war or sectarian strife.

The mere act of voting does not mean a people are ready for democracy and that which it entails. A democracy with strong constitutional protections is a very different thing from two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The Iraqi people, generally speaking, are not ready for Western-style democracy due to having other priorities and different preferred values and a long tradition of such. Our conception of freedom and rights is VERY different from most of the Middle East's conception of those things, and this is what Bush is simply ignoring.

The West didn't emerge from medieval ideology overnight, yet Bush expects Iraq to suddenly embrace modernist ideology and forget the long traditions of tribalism and Islamic values which are not concordant with modern Western values.

Bush thinks such differences don't matter. Let me pose a question: would a 12th century Western cleric, transported forward through time to the present era, suddenly agree with and accept modern Western values and the separation of Church and State etc.? It took the West hundreds of years to come out of medievalist thinking. Bush expects Iraqis and Middle Easterners to do it in a mere decade or less. No Reformation, no Enlightenment, no Renaissance, no Western philosophical tradition - yet a very strong ingrained traditional religious background and culture. This will convert to modernist thinking and politics in a decade or so?

It's another world over there. Worlds are colliding now; or, perhaps more aptly, centuries are colliding, across a gulf of many centuries. It is possible to live on the same globe without living in the same world.

Thanks for reading.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
gratitude? are you insane? The Iraqis owe us NOTHING because they never consented to anything we have done to or for them. Furthermore, if you look at how things have been going the last four years, Iraqis have more to be angry about than happy about. Saddam was a homocidal maniac, but things were still better when he was in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOL'ed at this I hope your kidding ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes american led intervention in Iraq has been so piss poor that the many Iraqis would have preferred the status quo of Saddam Hussien to remain.