It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Q. By what measure is Al-Hakim "in the lead"?
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.
Something untoward will happen to him and he will be out of the running for sure.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That figures, they want us out now that we liberated them, died for them, fought for them and assisted in their rebuild
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?
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.
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.
What exactly have you rebuilt?
What security problem before? There wasn't one till Shrub rolled in with poodle Blair and trashed the place.
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.
What have you given them apart from death, disease and misery?
They never asked you to invade in the first place did they?!
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.
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.