Dont bite the hand that provides security

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he was "very angered and pained" by the operation, warning that it could undermine his efforts toward national reconciliation.

"Reconciliation cannot go hand in hand with operations that violate the rights of citizens this way," al-Maliki said in a statement on government television. "This operation used weapons that are unreasonable to detain someone — like using planes."

He apologized to the Iraqi people for the operation and said "this won't happen again."

Friction between the U.S. military and the Iraqi government emerged as the U.S. military kicks off a military operation to secure Baghdad streets after a surge in Sunni-Shiite violence — much of it blamed on al-Sadr's militia.

news.yahoo.com...


Al- Maliki is off his rocker! he expects US troops to protect Iraq and yet he criticizes the US Military when we attack insurgents. He can't have it both ways. doesn't he realize how weak his govt is? Doesn't he realize how his govt would fall if we got mad enough to leave? my advice, don't bite the hand that feed you Maliki. and BTW, I think Howard Dean was right when he called him an Anti-semite. why does the US always back the lunatics?


comments guys?

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by nb25
and BTW, I think Howard Dean was right when he called him an Anti-semite. why does the US always back the lunatics?

then your just as much of an idiot as dean. the word "semite" (for the second time tonight) means a race of people including jews and arabs. so basically dean said the guy was anti-himself.

research research research.

Mmmm.. while we are there nothing will ever come of Iraq, the only way to fix the problem we created is to leave, let them destroy eachother and allow the victor to claim his land. That is the natural order of things, third party involvment especially in the ME is a horrible idea. If only our leaders could have stayed awake during history class. I know it sounds bad, but you can't force people that are different then eachother to get along right off the bat, everyones equal. Look how long it took America, and the only reason it DID work in America, although it took along time, and we arnt truly there yet, is that we did not have the tradition and history ground into us because we are such a young nation. We cannot expect everyone to be like us.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by nb25
and BTW, I think Howard Dean was right when he called him an Anti-semite. why does the US always back the lunatics?

then your just as much of an idiot as dean. the word "semite" (for the second time tonight) means a race of people including jews and arabs. so basically dean said the guy was anti-himself.

research research research.

There is a difference between Semites and Arabs. - Sorry for the 1 liner.

Arabs are semites in racial origin and they speak a semetic language Arabic.

Semites are:

1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
1 b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Originally posted by thematrix
Arabs are semites in racial origin and they speak a semetic language Arabic.

Semites are:

1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
1 b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

I stand corrected, I thought Hebrew, Arab and Persians, along with Aramaic peoples where all different races, united by a common language family. Although I also though Persian was different language family then the Semetic.. Anyways sorry for derailing the thread.

I also stand corrected. sorry about the mix up. i deny ignorance.

Well I think the United States has a duty of care to protect Iraq from devolving into bloody anarchy. That being said the United States came to implement democracy in Iraq, that does not extend to having to do exactly what the United States dictates.

So the quandry is more like does the United States have carte blanch to pacify Baghdad with bombs from the United States Air Force? Surely it's not unreasonable for the Iraqi Prime Minister to object to the sledge hammer tactics of aerial bombardment to quell a non-mechanized insurgency?

As Iraq's Prime Minister, Al-Maliki's loyalty should be first and foremost to the Iraqi people. If he believes his people are being unjustifiably killed when there are other options it is his democratic right to say so. If that runs contrary to what the United States believes....viva la democracy!

The United States does not have the luxury of cutting and running because they're copping flak from Al-Maliki. They broke Iraq, they have the obligation (both morally and legally) to fix it again.

Well when, if Iraq ever takes over full control of Iraq I hope they can find a better way to find the guys blowing up cars around crowds.
I hope when America leaves they will no longer have a reason to do such barbaric acts of violence...
If a group comes into power that America does not like, like Hammas did in Palestine.. well we don't always respect other peoples decisions.

The answer to suicide bombers and insurgents is not a guided missile from 30,000ft

The US presence in Iraq is a factor in the insurgency but it is not the sole cause. Iraq was an unnatural creation that comprised three distinct ethnic and religious groups. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. These three groups are exploiting the chaos of the fall of Saddam to vie for control of territory and ultimately autonomy. The US presence is just the catalyst these groups have seized upon to rebel.

To halt the insurgency and to stem a civil war you'd have to acknowledge these three different groups of people in Iraq. You'd then have to give very serious thought into forming a federation of three semi-autonomous zones. Ignoring this fact will not make it go away and is the prime driving force the insurgents are living off.

If Iraq federates into three regions it will quell much of the fighting. Then Iraq can then start to realistically rebuild its civic and military institutions so as to allow the United States to implement a staggered withdrawal.

Ignoring the root causes of anger simply adds fuel to the fire. So too does trying to fix things with more bombs and killing.

Originally posted by subz
If Iraq federates into three regions it will quell much of the fighting. Then Iraq can then start to realistically rebuild its civic and military institutions so as to allow the United States to implement a staggered withdrawal.

the only problem with that is the fact that the oil fields arent evenly split throughout the country. i agree completely that the only way to fix the problem is to undraw one hundred years worth of european emposed lines on the map....but how do you do that with an equal share of the only thing of monetary value in the country?

What many fail to understand is that the so called insurgency between Shiites and Sunnis are after all Iraqi people.

When US target the so called insurgency in Baghdad they are targeting Iraqis.

Then what is US to do? kill the entire population as to stop the unrest between tribes and the end the civil war?

I think the ones that missed the history class was the entire staff of the Bush administration when they decided to become the crusaders in the middle east in the pursue of Democracy and a change hart when it comes to religious views.

The unrest in Iraq would moderate a lot if only Iran and Syria would stop fanning the flames.

Originally posted by snafu7700
the only problem with that is the fact that the oil fields arent evenly split throughout the country. i agree completely that the only way to fix the problem is to undraw one hundred years worth of european emposed lines on the map....but how do you do that with an equal share of the only thing of monetary value in the country?

Im not a nation builder but I think nationalising the oil fields and redistributing the revenue in a three way split is fair. In a federation with a federal government and state government can allow for the redistribution of wealth from each region. They can govern themselves and still allow a federal unity government to apportion national wealth.

But then again the Sunnis only account for a very small minority of Iraqs people. Maybe split the revenue in proportion to population size? Anything is better than trying to form a government of national unity in Iraq.

If we are there to bring him democracy why shouldn't he be allowed to critisize something even if it is the USA and the way he feels his citizens are being handled? Should he just stay silent and be a puppet? If he is to get any respect from his constituents then he must also stand up for them if they are to trust him. If he just stays quiet while the voters are complaining then its not much of a democracy.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by subz
If Iraq federates into three regions it will quell much of the fighting. Then Iraq can then start to realistically rebuild its civic and military institutions so as to allow the United States to implement a staggered withdrawal.

the only problem with that is the fact that the oil fields arent evenly split throughout the country. i agree completely that the only way to fix the problem is to undraw one hundred years worth of european emposed lines on the map....but how do you do that with an equal share of the only thing of monetary value in the country?

You simply cannot create a country based on where oil fields are, some countries will get richer then others because of this but that is not reason enough to slam three peoples together. Right now the Kurds are not on the news, ever wonder why? They segregated themselves, they provide their own security and they claim to be their own independent state that happens to be within another state.

Time did a wonderful article and I cannot find it on their site, but they relate pictures of baghdad and other southern cities of bombed out buildings, blood covered streets and blown out cafes to Kurdistans forest of cranes constructing new buildings, their own maned check points and so on. They even have a tourism trade with southern Iraqis fleeing to Kurdistan on weekends.

Kurdistan even profits off of the destruction in the south, one of their largest companies sells reinforce concrete slabs to protect buildings against suicide bombs.

They already have a new education system in place where all kids are being taught English to compete with the world markets, these schools built by British/Kurdish exiles.

Our policy over their is not to reward good behavior, it is to sit around and like Subz said, launch guided missiles from 30,000 ft. Education is the only thing that can actually repair the region, along with allowing a rift between the states if they so please, even if it means ever so slightly higher gas prices for us. There is plenty of oil in the north for Kurds, plenty for the Sunnis, plenty for Shiites, who also control the sea ports. So long as they spend it on things like education and health care and not chemical weapons for mass killings and large armies, like Saddam, they will be able to live just as well as other Arabs.

rockpuck....that's the most interesting thing i have read on this site for awhile. it's amazing that the mainstream media outlets dont mention the kurds anymore. i'm going to have to do some further research on this one.

just goes to show you that the media never changes: if it bleeds, it leads.

Originally posted by snafu7700
rockpuck....that's the most interesting thing i have read on this site for awhile. it's amazing that the mainstream media outlets dont mention the kurds anymore. i'm going to have to do some further research on this one.

just goes to show you that the media never changes: if it bleeds, it leads.

What does the Media report? Death, destruction and loose women who get abductded in Aruba.

They don't care about inspiring stories like the Kurdish struggle.