Maliki threatens Diplomatic Relations with Protesting States
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Saturday threatened to cut off diplomatic relations with countries that criticized the execution of Saddam Hussein. He defended the decision to execute him on the Sunni feast of sacrifice, saying that Saddam had profaned religious holidays. Note to al-Maliki: 1. Don't compare yourself to Saddam and 2. when you have a capital so dangerous that countries are afraid to send embassies, it isn't really that much of a threat when you say you'll cut off diplomatic relations.
Another 47 bodies were found in Baghdad through midnight Friday but not fully reported until Saturday. Guerrillas tried to car-bomb the chief of Baghdad police, Maj. Gen Ali Yasir, but missed and killed and wounded innocent by-standers. If this is what the life of the police chief is like, imagine that of ordinary people.
The major newspapers and wire services say that Bush will put as many as 20000 further troops into Baghdad and al-Anbar provinces. Wesley Clark says it won't work. Col. Paul Hughes at the US Institute of Peace thinks it would take hundreds of thousands of troops, based on experience in the Balkans.
The real need is for some political initiatives. Shiites cannot rule a majority Sunni province like Diyala without there being a lot of trouble. There need to be provincial elections in places like Diyala so that the US has representative Sunnis to talk to.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/07/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
We've all heard more than enough about Deputy Dubya Bush lowering expectations, but with the Bush and Maliki/Moqtadr lynching of Saddam Hussein on a Muslim holiday, it would seem that he and they do indeed consider imitation the sincerest form of flattery.
Our policymakers seem to be living in fantasyland and want to "win". This "ordinary man" does not seem to see what "win" means. As you said, when the Police Chief is subject to assassination, then how should the ordinary individuals react? Hopefully, they'll wake up someday...
Maliki threatens Diplomatic Relations with Protesting States
Bwah ha ha ha!
[quickly coming down to a more serious demeanor]
Good Morning.
I'd think this clown puppet was a joke if it wasn't sick and perverse on his part to insist that Iraq as a nation HAS anything resembling'diplomatic' relations with it's neighbors right now.
Or any clout in that arena whatsoever with any other country at all.
He must be taking the same medications that our president, duck-huntin' dick, and William Renquist take.
Check them out:
Articles from: news.Independent.co.uk
Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days
* Blood and oil: How West will profit from Iraq's precious commodity
* Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire
* Geoffrey Lean: Oil. Fast-vanishing drug the world can't live without
* Leading article: The oil rush
The Sunnis keep saying what they want. Not provincial elections, but a constitution that does bring super-provinces a step away from independence and a US withdrawal. The US is blocking the second obviously, but the only parties that tolerate the US in Iraq are those that also want their regions to be closer to independence.
In August you, Dr. Cole, said you were told that the Americans were postponing provincial elections to prevent Sadr from rising to power.
There is one problem in Iraq that the US has any influence over, which is that most people in Iraq want the US to withdraw and the US does not. The other isses are only symptoms of that problem.
The provincial elections cannot be held because they would strengthen the hands of people who want a withdrawal.
The break up of Iraq would be catastrophic for the region, but the US has to assist proponents of the breakup because to do otherwise would strengthen the hands of people who want a withdrawal.
The Sunnis want to negotiate a post-withdrawal order with the Shiites, but they cannot because the US does not want to withdraw.
The Iranians and Syrians want to negotiate a post-withdrawal order with the Saudis, Kuwaitis and Jordanians, but they cannot because the US does not want to withdraw.
The even stupider thing is that the US will not even end up being there for any long time. It is just that the Americans want to squeeze out every penalty and disadvantage from not withdrawing, before they withdraw.
It's been suspicious to me that the USA backs away from al Sadr. He is not pro-Iranian and not bloodthirsty, regardless of what Bush and Biden (strangely) might purport.
He's the perfect choice.
He has the backing of millions of Iraqis. He has the respect of al Sistani. He parlays diplomacy with Sunnis. He hates al Qaeda. He has political and policing control over half of the capitol Baghdad.
This would be a win-win situation. But we don't jump on the opportunity - why?
That's the $64,000 Question.
I wonder why the US goverment does not include the cost of oil supply to the gas price.
According to some calculations, the costs (army, war in Iraq, etc) are about 60 dollars a barrel.
At some point the US goverment will have to include the costs. Doing so gradually would lessen the pain.
Other POTUS:
I'll answer your question for 25 cents. Sadr will not tolerate a US military presence in Iraq and the US wants to keep such a presence at all costs.
The US refusal to announce, even without a timetable, that it intends to fully exit Iraq, say as soon as some medium-term goal is reached is breathtakingly damaging to Iraqi politics and to the Middle East, to a large degree in ways that hurt the US.
Sadr is more pro-Iranian than the US would like though. Probably less than Hakim or even Sistani (an Iranian who refused Iraqi citizenship saying he was born Iranian and will die Iranian) but a lot more than George Bush.
In an Iranian press conference, Sadr said he would take up arms against the US if the US bombs Iran.
Post a Comment
<< Home