[marden]

Why Maliki Will Choose to Align Himself With Iran not USA

My guess is that when he visited Iran, Ahmadinejad told him something like this:

'The Americans are weak and the protests you see on TV in America and the Democratic victory in the elections tell you that they are soon to leave you here alone to defend your fledgling nation against the insurgents. Including Iranian terrorists.

If you bet on the Americans sticking around to defend your government you will lose.

But if you align yourself with us and tell Bush to take a hike we will stand beside you and THAT you can take to the bank.

The Americans are "loosers." They have no will to support their own way of life. You can not expect them to support YOUR nation's fight for freedom if they refuse to stand for their own. They have no will to win. They are unreliable.'

Read my sig.

[Kerrigan]

loosers?

Anyways who cares about Iraq. Churchill was right when he called Iraq an "ungrateful volcano".

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

loosers?

Iranians can't spell.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

Why Maliki Will Choose to Align Himself With Iran not USA

My guess is that when he visited Iran, Ahmadinejad told him something like this:



Read my sig.

My guess is Iran told Iraq that if Iraq sides with Iran, Iran will give them two scoops of ice cream instead of one before bedtime. And my guess is about as informed as yours.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

My guess is Iran told Iraq that if Iraq sides with Iran, Iran will give them two scoops of ice cream instead of one before bedtime. And my guess is about as informed as yours.

My guess is that Maliki can get ice cream without Ahmad.

You loose.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

My guess is that Maliki can get ice cream without Ahmad.

You loose.

Well, there are reasons why your hypothesis is not so good.

Maliki has said before he doesn't want the US staying. One would guess he went to Iran to discuss post US involvement in the region. But I doubt Iran had to initiate that conversation. Iraq wants the US to leave too.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well, there are reasons why your hypothesis is not so good.

Maliki has said before he doesn't want the US staying. One would guess he went to Iran to discuss post US involvement in the region. But I doubt Iran had to initiate that conversation. Iraq wants the US to leave too.

Hell, the President of the United States has said he wants us to leave Iraq...when the Iraqi government is strong enough to stand on it's own and not become a puppet state of Iran.

That is what I'm talking about. Maliki, I fear, has decided to become a puppet state of Iran because we have sent him the message that we are stupid and self loathing and unreliable.

Iran is smart, thinks they should lead the world and have a long term dedication to Koranic ideals.

Speaking for Maliki which one would look to be a better bet for him?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hell, the President of the United States has said he wants us to leave Iraq...when the Iraqi government is strong enough to stand on it's own and not become a puppet state of Iran.

Ahhhh. So you want Iraqi to stand on their own as long as they stand how we want them to stand. I'm afraid you've made the definition of "stand on their own" explode.

Originally Posted by marden 

That is what I'm talking about. Maliki, I fear, has decided to become a puppet state of Iran because we have sent him the message that we are stupid and self loathing and unreliable.

Maliki is doing what he can to stop the US from breaking Iraq any more. That means turning to his neighbors, even if his neighbor is Iran. We were the ones who set this course of events in motion.

Originally Posted by marden 

Iran is smart, thinks they should lead the world and have a long term dedication to Koranic ideals.

No debate there.

Originally Posted by marden 

Speaking for Maliki which one would look to be a better bet for him?

Iran can send money and aid, and be a trading partner. The US has done a piss poor job of doing any of those things. Maliki, like a good politician, is interested in what he can do to help his people, not the interests of the US.

[ironknee]

the baker report, the leaked memo about maliki, the meeting between iraq/iran...

i can hear it now..."we may have battled in the past when your saddam scared us.

but we are muslim--therefore brothers...let us and syria combine our powers against the evil bush who invaded our soil and started all this."

[Ron Goodman]

Since the Shia are a majority in Iraq and Iran is Shiite too, why the surprise that they have a lot more in common with each other than with the US? I'm guessing that religious similarities are going to trump ethnic differences.

[tie]

All Muslims are natural allies in the battle to retake their ancestral homeland, the United States. We are powerless against the threat (mostly because of the Democrats), so the best we can do is to try to keep them from exploiting racial resentment in the US. Just my guess.

[Atomic Rooster]

I thought Maliki was in Hawaii?

[marden]

Originally Posted by tie 

All Muslims are natural allies in the battle to retake their ancestral homeland, the United States. We are powerless against the threat (mostly because of the Democrats), so the best we can do is to try to keep them from exploiting racial resentment in the US. Just my guess.

I'm flattered.

[mac128k-1984]

Well its understandable (but not something I support).

He needs stability for his government to succeed. We cannot provide that stability as shown by our track record and more importantly we're not going to be there forever (gosh I hope not) so when we leave he will need allies that the citizens for the most part could accept. That means a middle eastern neighbor.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Anyways who cares about Iraq. Churchill was right when he called Iraq an "ungrateful volcano".

I agree. The American blood that has been spilled was in no way worth what was gained or even what was promised to be gained by going in there in the first place. Our country had too many problems and needs to be spendnig the billions of dollars trying to keep these people from strapping bombs on themselves and killing each other. We're caught in the middle. Unfortunitly we cannot just get up and leave at this point its too late for that, but we can set a time table and an exit strategy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Well its understandable (but not something I support).

He needs stability for his government to succeed. We cannot provide that stability as shown by our track record and more importantly we're not going to be there forever (gosh I hope not) so when we leave he will need allies that the citizens for the most part could accept. That means a middle eastern neighbor.

As "Sayf-Allah" has argued in another thread, two nations can be neighbors without their being best of allies nor being at war.

Be careful of automatically assuming things that don't have to be true. You may think it the most natural thing in the world to have good relations with your neighbors as we have with Mexico and Canada but that is not necessarily the case around the world.

That is why we are there.

So that Iraq CAN exist next door to Iran and not be eaten up like Bambi at a Lion's Club Roast.

Just think of what it took for Saddam to keep Iran from invading.

A strong military. An iron grip on the population and the threat of WMD's.

We can't leave until Iraq can resist Iran's advances.

But if Iran has found a way to bypass all the diplomatic and military and economic means we have tried to establish which would prevent Iraq from falling to Iran, then maybe Iraq might already be DOA.

Damn.

What if I am right and Maliki has already chosen to be Ahmadinejad's boy?

[moodymonster]

Maliki is Shia - like most of Iran

[moodymonster]

The Saudis are Sunni - so it would interesting to see how they'd treat a Shia Iraq

[marden]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I agree. The American blood that has been spilled was in no way worth what was gained or even what was promised to be gained by going in there in the first place. Our country had too many problems and needs to be spendnig the billions of dollars trying to keep these people from strapping bombs on themselves and killing each other. We're caught in the middle. Unfortunitly we cannot just get up and leave at this point its too late for that, but we can set a time table and an exit strategy.

Whoever controls has a POTENTIAL stranglehold on the world. Osama bin Laden knew this. GWB knew this. Many of us did not.

If by various means, (similar to those we have seen here in how Ahmadinejad may have weaseled his way around our best efforts and gotten to Maliki) the islamists, OBL and others in the same Islamic cause had been able to either:

Convince the oil producing nations to join forces against the US
Destroy the oil going to America
Divert the oil going to America

We would now be in a MUCH LARGER war than the one in Iraq.

We would have been in that war for the past three years.

Your way of life would have been SIGNIFICANTLY inconvenienced.

America has that potential stranglehold on the Middle East oil but you never even THINK of the United States acting to deny oil to ANYONE.

Yet, we COULD do it at any time.

Who else in the world would you trust to have their hands on the world's oil supplies and not use it vengefully or as a weapon against US or anyone?

Oil is so damn important. It is like this nation's (or any developed nation's) life's blood.

10% of our oil supplies come (or used to come) from Iraq.

Imagine losing 10% of your total blood volume. Ask a doctor what that would do to you.
Then you will get an idea of what losing Iraq's oil would have done to us. We would have HAD to use force to get it back.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Carter Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oil is used to make and bring to your home or job every single thing that exists. Look around you and there is NOTHING you see that would be there or made possible without oil. Nothing. What's more, our national economy is based on our ability to generate revenue, income, products and services and pay future obligations. Without oil our production slows down then stops. When that happens no commerce is transacted and no revenue is generated and business go under and default on their obligations and before very long, days not weeks, our whole nation would be in chaos. And because all the economies in the world are interconnected a fall of the USA would have catastrophic consequences throughout the world. Only 3rd world nations or those with a surplus of oil would remain standing.

So oil is a crucial commodity to any and every one living in industrialized societies. If you remove oil access from a country they will die and so the only alternative left to them is to go to war. To fight for their life.

Bush Flip Flopping - Page 2 - eBaum's World Forum

[marden]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

The Saudis are Sunni - so it would interesting to see how they'd treat a Shia Iraq

The idea is for ALL of the people to rise above their tribal loyalties or their sectarian loyalties and be committed to IRAQ.

One of the things that made Saddam effective and even helped him to gain power in the first place. He didn't buy into the whole Sunni -Shia thing as much as he was into the concept of HIM being the muckety muck.

He went under the radar of Shias afraid of a hard core Sunni. He was a middle of the road dictator, in that sense.

All of this is just my conjecture based on much reading, over time.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

Maliki is Shia - like most of Iran

Not only that, Maliki is also a shia Islamist.

Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

snip snip

Translation: The end of the world is so nigh.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Not only that, Maliki is also a shia Islamist.

Taliesin

We got a clue to that this past summer when he voiced support for Hezbollah in the war in Lebanon.

Iraqi PM Condemns Israel

Posted on Jul 19, 2006

In yet another awkward turn of events for the Bush administration, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki denounced Israel’s actions in Lebanon. While Bush has condoned Israel’s recent military incursion, the man he embraced during his trip to Iraq moved closer to being in step with Iran on Wednesday.

“I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.”

The notion that invading Iraq would somehow be good for Israel appears ever more farcical with each twist in this unfortunate tale. http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...demns_israel1/


Vahid Salemi/Associated Press
Many Sunni Arabs, traditionally opposed to Shiite leaders like Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, say they are nonetheless rooting for Hezbollah.

[Sayf-Allah]

There were only two possible outcomes of this war.

1. An Iraq that will be stuck in a civil war for several years and even decades.
2. A stable Iraq that will be Irans best ally.

Both these situations could be described as the US losing this war. They still went ahead with it..........

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Translation: The end of the world is so nigh.

Some people are adept at staking out positions that defy dispelling.

There is no way you can be proven wrong in this, Troll, except if/when my greatest fear were to come true. And make no mistake about it, the reason I give warnings is in the hope that by spreading the word, somehow, the worst WILL NOT HAPPEN.

But if the worst DID come true no one would be thinking, "See, Troll? marden was right!"

However, by assuming your position which pooh poohs my prognostications you can never be proven wrong unless the worst were to happen.

So go ahead and pooh pooh as usual.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

There were only two possible outcomes of this war.

1. An Iraq that will be stuck in a civil war for several years and even decades.
2. A stable Iraq that will be Irans best ally.

Both these situations could be described as the US losing this war. They still went ahead with it..........

So, you disagree that the conduct of the war in the 6 weeks after the end of major combat operations was crucial to the outcome?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hell, the President of the United States has said he wants us to leave Iraq

Are you saying the POTUS has the same position on the US remaining in Iraq as Iran?!?!? Coincidence????
[/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by marden 

...when the Iraqi government is strong enough to stand on it's own and not become a puppet state of Iran.

That is what I'm talking about. Maliki, I fear, has decided to become a puppet state of Iran because we have sent him the message that we are stupid and self loathing and unreliable.

As opposed to being a puppet state of the US?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Be careful of automatically assuming things that don't have to be true.

Says the pot

Originally Posted by marden 

Why Maliki Will Choose to Align Himself With Iran not USA

My guess is that when he visited Iran, Ahmadinejad told him something like this:

[moodymonster]

ABC News: Saudi will intervene in Iraq if U.S. withdraws: aide

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

ABC News: Saudi will intervene in Iraq if U.S. withdraws: aide

Thats laughable. Do they even have an army?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying the POTUS has the same position on the US remaining in Iraq as Iran?!?!? Coincidence????
[/sarcasm]

As opposed to being a puppet state of the US?

Are France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Japan and others puppets of the US?

All we want is for the Iraqi government to be strong and strongly able to be libertarianist while surrounded by strong influences to be Islamist.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Says the pot

My GUESS. (After considering several other possibilities.)

[marden]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

ABC News: Saudi will intervene in Iraq if U.S. withdraws: aide

I LOVE the news of this turn of events, if ONLY because of the surprising but OBVIOUS smarts of it.

One of the reasons we backed Saddam in the first place was because of the rise of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. They posed a direct threat to the Saudis if they started an Islamic movement throughout the region. And the Saudis were none too pleased to have such a powerful and unopposed Shiite presence so nearby.

So we assured the Saudis of our loyalty and acted as a buffer between ANYONE who might threaten them. But now it's them standing up for us (in a way) but for themselves, with our help.

There are real interesting possibilities that can come from this...both pro AND con, but it is a VERY significant development!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

My GUESS. (After considering several other possibilities.)

Guess now. Truth after you continue to repeat it. You're already starting to build the "What if" argument.

Originally Posted by marden 

What if I am right and Maliki has already chosen to be Ahmadinejad's boy?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Guess now. Truth after you continue to repeat it. You're already starting to build the "What if" argument.

I am doing nothing more than any of the better known pundits (some of whom aren't as accurate as I am, and very few who are as fun) who guess what is going on by using verified information and known facts as the jumping off point for their guesses.

And the reason you follow a pundit is because they are often enough correct and because they are pleasing in some way or another.

I'd say that with my various posting friends and helpers we have been accurate more often than not and we always aimed to please.

So, bottom line, my "what if's" are close to the mark, are based on facts, stand up to scrutiny and are fun. And in the rare times I am proven wrong I always quickly acknowledge the truth.

So there!

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Thats laughable. Do they even have an army?

erm, just a bit - after the first Gulf War they set about making their army stronger - US/UK/European equipped - US/UK trained - even rumours of a nuclear weapons program.

They're not the largest armed forces in the ME, but very well equipped. The also have a large National Guard that is mainly there as a balance to the conventional armed forces (made up of tribal factions linked to ruling family), but has fought outside of Saudi Arabia such as during the first Gulf War.

There's currently a debacle in the UK 'cause the Serious Fraud Office want to investigate the Saudi Royal Family's accounts - the Saudis sya that if they do, Saudi Arabia will cancel their £10B eurofighter deal with the UK.

In short Saudi Arabia do have an army, I think their air force is second only to Israel as well.