It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Leading candidate in Iraq elections wants US out ASAP

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shi'ite cleric who is in the lead to become the Prime Minister of Iraq after the elections next week, has stated a desire for the withdrawal of American forces, "as soon as possible." Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has said that Iraq can rely on itself and it's people and does not want foreign troops in it's country. He did not give a timetable on when they should leave, saying that the details would be worked out after the elections.
 




www.timesonline.co.uk
"No people in the world accepts occupation and nor do we accept the continuation of American troops in Iraq," said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

"We regard these forces to have committed many mistakes in the handling of various issues, the first and foremost being that of security, which in turn has contributed to the massacres, crimes and calamities that have taken place in Iraq against the Iraqis."

In comments certain to raise eyebrows in the United States, al-Hakim spoke of a role for Iran and Syria — both regarded in Washington as enemies in the war on terror — along with Iraq’s other neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, in the security of the country.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The US governement has said, on more than one occasion, that the US will withdraw troops from Iraq if they are asked to do so by the government of Iraq. I think they will honor that request if it is made but I'm not sure how long it will take for the troops to leave.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's desire to have better relations with Iran and Syria may be a problem for the US as they both are essentially 'enemies' of the US.

Related News Links:
Iraq Shiite Leader Escapes Deadly Bombing
Iraqi elections 2005

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WAR: Iraq Must Vote Despite Problems, UN Official Says
Video: Iraq elections Ads, featuring Allawi


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Ha, I knew that they don't want US in their lands at all, US did the job for them now is time to take a hike or else, they will turn against US forces and the US will have not friends.

Remember the Shiite ruling they will never turn against their fellow Shiites in Iran.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Well, I'm sure the US and British etc want to get out of Iraw as soon as possible too.

If the Iraqi Government then wants to strengthen ties with it's neighbours in the region that's their business and nobody elses.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Q. By what measure is Al-Hakim "in the lead"? I did not know any votes had been cast yet. Sunday Times only tips him out of observations of the origins of the party:

"The powerful alliance headed by al-Hakim was formed on the initiative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most revered spiritual leader. It is expected to win a majority of seats in the 275-member transitional national assembly, from which the prime minister will be chosen."

If Bush has any competency at all in Iraq, he will simply use the same techniques as were applied in the US 2004 election to create a more Bush-friendly election outcome: fear and fraud tactics.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Q. By what measure is Al-Hakim "in the lead"?


I'm going by the title of the news article and information from other news sources:
"Go home Yanks, says PM in waiting"


MSNBC
The United States says Iran is funding the leading Shiite candidate Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who is expected to emerge as the country's most powerful figure. A new Shiite government could oppose controversial military operations, like Fallujah, or even demand a rapid U.S. withdrawal.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar


If Bush has any competency at all in Iraq, he will simply use the same techniques as were applied in the US 2004 election to create a more Bush-friendly election outcome: fear and fraud tactics.
Something untoward will happen to him and he will be out of the running for sure.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
All polticians lie, no? So is he saying that because this is what he would like, would demand, or want the people to believe? The most reasonable answer I am sure lies within the knowledge the Iraqi people of him.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
IMHO, despite my otherwise opinion and beliefs, I think that Mr. Aziz al-Hakim makes a legit point. Let them handle their own internal possible crisis after the elections. It works better for the US that it be this way, again in my honest opinion. Its better that they resolve their internal problems amongst themselves since they obviously can relate better than they can to foreigners. Sometimes I think that a civil war is what they need to settle their inherent difference, anyhow.

The US, and others, can continue to provide encouragement and needed funding and loans, etc., per request(s). If the first temporary government holds up, then in a year, they will be voting for their real government leaders amongst themselves, again, if all goes well.




seekerof


SMR

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I have always felt the same way Seekerof
The longer we stay,the more they are going to want us out and start all this over again.
There's no reason to be there any longer IMO.We trapped the rat and disposed of him,lets go home.
The only reason I see Bush staying his to make his own government the way he feels it should be.It is not his country to go making those decisions.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I understand that the US has quietly brought in over 20,000 Shiates (I believe from Iran) into Iraq who have said they are willing and able to vote in the election.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by jupiter869]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Source of such an assertion, jupiter869?
Cause I have a source that stipulates that it is not the US that is doing such, but that it is the Iranians themselves doing such.


The king warned that Tehran has mobilized over a million Iranians to infiltrate Iraq and vote in the election, thus ensuring the victory of pro-Iranian candidates.

WHAT IRAN IS AFTER IN IRAQ



seekerof



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
The above two posts only suggest that the US has quietly brought in over 20,000 while Iran has noisily brought in over one million. One concept is more plausible tnan the other for obvious reasons of scale and border security, and in any event the concepts are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Realistically, it is in the better interests (security, influence, etc.) of Iran, and not the US, that they infiltrate Shi'ites into Iraq in hopes of influencing the election outcome. Probably why I find it more than strange, if not absurd, that the US would be 'secretly' bringing in Shi'ites.

I think it would be safe to say that if the Shi'ites, or member thereof, wins the upcoming elections, Iranian influence will be sought and obtained. And this, of course, would not be in the best interests of the US.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Realistically, it is in the better interests (security, influence, etc.) of Iran, and not the US, that they infiltrate Shi'ites into Iraq in hopes of influencing the election outcome.
Why? Is this the excuse then, that Iranians were responsible for a Shia win, and how does the naturally overwhelming Shia Iraqi majority figure in to the news briefs highlighting the election results?

Aside from this, if any country can infiltrate the carded electoral process so easily, then obviously the security process and the electoral system is a failure. Hence, whatever the outcome, it is a sham, no?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
That figures, they want us out now that we liberated them, died for them, fought for them and assisted in their rebuild. I say if they want us out, pack up leave dont do another damn thing there, if we bought pack it up and bring it back. If we built it, scrap it. If we poored money into it, send them the bill and demand payment within 30 days or interest charges start.

They want to handle their problems, GREAT! But what the hell were they doing about the security problem now and before? Oh we screwed everything up, BS. They want to be the bigshot now and call the shots, well damn, it took another country to waltz in and take care fo the very problem they were to feared to handle themselves.

Yes I am angry about this, they have no appreciation for what has been given them. Hell, if they want to call all the shots, hand Saddam over on a street when the last US/MNF truck rolls out and out him on the curb say here, you want us out, now its your problem deal with it. Dont ask us for anything in the future, but if you side up with Iran and Syria and tie yourself into what is not right by the eyes of the world, may you fall on your sword or someone will make you.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   


That figures, they want us out now that we liberated them, died for them, fought for them and assisted in their rebuild


What exactly have you rebuilt?


If we built it, scrap it. If we poored money into it, send them the bill and demand payment within 30 days or interest charges start.


They should be doing that too you. It is the coalition that shattered Iraq, not the Iraqis.



They want to handle their problems, GREAT! But what the hell were they doing about the security problem now and before?


What security problem before? There wasn't one till Shrub rolled in with poodle Blair and trashed the place.



They want to be the bigshot now and call the shots, well damn, it took another country to waltz in and take care fo the very problem they were to feared to handle themselves.


They were not too scared. You show your ignorance in this matter. They rose up at the end of the 1st Gulf War, but the US and Allies abandonded them.



Yes I am angry about this, they have no appreciation for what has been given them.


What have you given them apart from death, disease and misery?



Dont ask us for anything in the future, but if you side up with Iran and Syria and tie yourself into what is not right by the eyes of the world, may you fall on your sword or someone will make you.


They never asked you to invade in the first place did they?!

I can see that the propaganda machine is alive and well!



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
initially reading through this article i thought the US might use this guy to get themselves out of the country, since i also believe that once the iraqi governmnet is established the US coalition should withdraw upon request and let the iraqis sort themselves out. the US would maintain influence in the region through afghanistan, and be able to hold onto their contracts and investments in the country. (oil)

so i thought this might be the idea until i read this guy proposed security from iran and syria. this seems like a major problem for US investments in the region, especially if this guy is the front runner with support from iran. i also can't see the US secretly smuggling in shi'ites in support of this guy. if this al-Hakim gets in, US oil contracts in iraq are in serious trouble and basically there was no point in invading iraq in the first place.

-raven



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   


What exactly have you rebuilt?


Its called tax dollars and everyone has built something there, no matter how big or small.




What security problem before? There wasn't one till Shrub rolled in with poodle Blair and trashed the place.


I am talking about the security problem after the war till now, not before the war.




They were not too scared. You show your ignorance in this matter. They rose up at the end of the 1st Gulf War, but the US and Allies abandonded them.


The Kurds rose up, a handful of northern Iraqis that tried to overthrow the govt and they were caught before the US/Allies could do anything about it. And many suffered for it. And before scrutiny throughout the world, yes we backed off. Had the Shi'ites actually bothered to assist in this, it would have been successful.




What have you given them apart from death, disease and misery?


They had that long before we got there. On a daily basis. I know that from them, who said what happens with Coalition being there was no different to what was happening there prior. They said you just never heard about it cause Saddam and his sons controlled the media and the situations there. War happened there on a daily basis, much like Israel and Palenstine.




They never asked you to invade in the first place did they?!


Had we not, where do you think Iraq would be right now? They harbored terrorists there, it was a safehaven after 9/11. Saddam wont admit it, but he gave them that. Why do you think there is so much controversy there? Half of the insurgency isnt even Iraqi, its a combo if many different nationalities.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mscbkc070904
The Kurds rose up, a handful of northern Iraqis that tried to overthrow the govt and they were caught before the US/Allies could do anything about it. And many suffered for it. And before scrutiny throughout the world, yes we backed off. Had the Shi'ites actually bothered to assist in this, it would have been successful.


The Shiites did rise up in 1991 and it wasn't just a handful.


Fox News
Tens of thousands of people were killed after Iraq's Shiite majority rose up after the 1991 Gulf War and seized control of most of the southern part of the country. Shiites, a minority in the Islamic world, make up 60 percent of Iraq's Muslims and were ruled for a generation by Saddam Hussein's overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim Baath Party (search).

Iraqi forces used helicopter gunships and tanks to defeat the lightly armed rebels. Thousands of people are believed to have been executed after the failed revolt.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Ace of Base

OK I stand corrected my head can only hold so much info. After I posted that, I gave it more thought and I do remember there was an uprising, but you already provided that, thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join