View Full Version : Iranian Revolution Alive and Well in Iraq
So , this is why Bush sent 2000 US soldiers to their death for??
So that another Ayatollah could rise in Iraq?
Great idea..
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved
Los Angeles Times
June 28, 2005 Tuesday
Commentary;
ROBERT SCHEER;
Iranian Revolution Is Thriving in Iraq
ROBERT SCHEER
Did those wily ayatollahs give us the purple finger again? It sure looks like it after the smashing defeat Iran's religious fanatics dealt reformers in the presidential election Friday.
It was a replay of the election in Iraq, in which candidates groomed by Tehran's theocracy herded loyal Shiite followers to the polls to dip their fingers in purple election ink. Only this time the sight of lines of shuffling, chador-clad women voting away their human rights was not applauded by the White House.
If he were capable of embarrassment or critical thought, President Bush might have caught the irony of celebrating the triumph of democracy in greeting Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari in Washington on Friday and on the same day having his administration condemn the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's new president.
Whether the United States approves or not, the most powerful Iraqi behind the scenes since the occupation began more than two years ago has been Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who, along with Jafari was sheltered and nurtured by Tehran's ayatollahs during Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. It was no accident that the first serious independent initiative of the elected Shiite leadership in Iraq was to welcome Iran's foreign minister and to declare, amazingly, that Iran was the moral party in its 1980s war with Iraq.
The elected leaders of Iraq and Iran are borne by the same ill wind -- religious fundamentalism -- which unfortunately is the first choice of many voters in Iraq, Iran and even the United States.
Elections are only one component of a thriving democracy. Unless restrained by a respected constitution and functioning balance of powers, democracy can be subverted by demagogic leaders. For the Bush White House, such complexity is irrelevant. Because the U.S. militarily controls Iraq, the flawed election there is seen as a triumph of democracy. Because Iran is an independent nation hostile to the U.S., its flawed election shows the country to be "out of step ... with the currents of freedom and liberty that have been so apparent in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon," according to the State Department.
Ahmadinejad "is no friend of democracy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld averred Sunday, probably correctly. Yet when he added, "He is a person who is very much supportive of the current ayatollahs, who are telling the people of that country how to live their lives," he may as well have been talking about Iraq's religious Shiite leaders, who not only beat the United States' handpicked leader in January's historic elections, but are already running much of southern Iraq as an Islamic state.
On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Shiite militias and religious parties have turned the southern city of Basra into a de facto Islamic theocracy. "Religion rules the streets of this once cosmopolitan city, where women no longer dare go out uncovered," reported The Times. "Conservative Shiite Islamic parties have solidified their grip, fully institutionalizing their power."
Thus, not only is Bush now allied in Iraq with the disciples of the anti-American Tehran tyranny, this foreign policy neophyte claims to be thrilled that the Iraqis have requested the indefinite commitment of U.S. troops to keep them in power by putting down a Sunni-led insurgency.
"I'm not giving up on the mission," Bush promised Jafari on Friday, just hours after more U.S. soldiers were killed and others wounded in a car bombing near Fallouja. Calling it "a mission" implies that our goals in Iraq are clear and finite. In fact, since the moment we easily took Baghdad from Hussein's ragtag loyalists, the situation has become murkier and more open-ended. Is our "mission" to provide security for Islamic fundamentalists hoping to turn Hussein's secular Iraq into Khomeini's theocratic Iran?
The tragic legacy of Bush's overthrow of the defanged secular dictator of Iraq, whom Rumsfeld once embraced as the U.S. ally holding back the Iranian revolution, is the triumph of that revolution in both Baghdad and Tehran.
At the very least, such obvious and looming contradictions in U.S. policy might compel debate in this country about the costs of what has been aptly termed our imperial hubris. So far, the Bush administration has managed to short-circuit that debate with a numbing cheerleader's rant about elections, as if they can always be co-opted.
Good editorial here from a history professor.. I agree with his assessment
Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
July 11, 2005 Monday Home Edition
Editorial; Pg. 7A;
WAR AND TERRORISM: Iran will emerge as clear victor in U.S. war in Iraq
ROBERT S. MCELVAINE
The London bombings will probably do for President Bush's poll ratings what his latest speech on Iraq could not: provide a temporary bump upward. But the key questions for the American people will not long remain obscured by renewed fears of terrorism: Is the Iraq war making us safer? Just what is the reason so many Americans are being killed and maimed?
Although Bush has long been despised in much of the world because of his war in Iraq, I have recently found there is one country in which our president is very popular, and the identity of that country can help us a great deal in answering those questions.
I was recently in South Korea, where I was making a presentation at the triennial Women's World's Congress. Some 90 nations were represented, but in talking there with people from many of those countries, I found only one where conference attendees said that Bush is popular: Iran.
Several conference participants from Iran told me that, among Iranians, Bush is now the most popular of all American presidents.
This information came as no surprise, but it was striking to have what seemed likely to be the case so directly confirmed, albeit only anecdotally.
The reason for Bush's popularity in Iran is not difficult to find. Although both he and the mullahs and new president who rule Iran are religious zealots who are always labeled "conservatives," that shared fundamentalism is not the basis for the American president's popularity in Tehran. Both are fundamentalists, but disagree on the particulars of the fundamentals they follow.
The reason for Bush's great approval in Iran is reminiscent of the view President Theodore Roosevelt took of a war that broke out in East Asia a century ago.
When Japan attacked the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in Manchuria in 1904, launching the Russo-Japanese War, Roosevelt wrote to his son and namesake, "Between ourselves, for you must not breathe it to anybody, I was thoroughly pleased with the Japanese victory, for Japan is playing our game ."
He meant that Russian dominance in Manchuria was keeping out the trade of other nations, particularly the United States, and that American interests were served by another nation checking Russia and opening up the region to free trade.
Roosevelt also saw that a prolonged war between two of the United States' rivals in East Asia would be especially beneficial to American interests because it would weaken both of them.
After waiting until a long war had exhausted both sides, Roosevelt iced the gift cake that Japan had baked for him in the form of its war against Russia by inviting diplomats from both belligerents to Portsmouth, N.H., to negotiate a settlement from which neither side would emerge as clearly victorious---and then was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, which had actually been directed toward advancing American interests.
Who, then, won the Russo-Japanese War a century ago? The United States.
In the current war of the early 21st century, Iran finds itself in a situation analogous to that of the United States in the war of the early 20th century between Japan and Russia.
By eliminating Saddam Hussein, Bush has removed the biggest counterweight to Iranian dominance of the region and accomplished for Iran --- at no cost whatsoever to that country --- what it was unable to do for itself in a long and horrible war in the 1980s.
On top of that, while fighting the Iranians' war for them, Bush has exhausted American military resources in the effort and has no credible military threat to use to pressure Iran.
When American troops leave Iraq, which eventually must happen, the result of the Bush war in Iraq will become apparent to all: Iran will emerge as the dominant power in the region.
So remember, in future years if someone asks who won the American war in Iraq, the correct answer will be: Iran.
[I]* Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss.
Let the love fest begin!
Copyright 2005 Xinhua News Agency
Xinhua General News Service
July 5, 2005 Tuesday 4:00 AM EST
Iraqi PM due in Tehran next Tuesday
TEHRAN
Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al- Jaafari will pay an official visit to Iran on July 12, the official IRNA news agency reported on Tuesday.
IRNA quoted an informed source as saying that prior to Jaafari's visit, ten Iraqi ministers will arrive in Tehran on July 10 to explore bilateral cooperation in different fields and make preparations for the Prime Minister's visit.
The visit of Jaafari is of high importance and can open a new chapter in Tehran-Baghdad cooperation, the source said.
The United States has accused Tehran of interfering in Iraq's internal affairs using its influence on the Iraq's Shiites since the downfall of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a charge categorically denied by Iran.
The two neighbors fought a disastrous war from 1980 to 1988, during which more than 500,000 people were killed.
Neighbours fear Iraqi Shia power
By Roger Hardy
BBC Middle East analyst
In the run-up to the referendum on Iraq's new constitution, there are growing anxieties among the country's neighbours.
Is Iraq on the verge of break-up? Has it swung firmly into the orbit of Shia Iran? Will the violence in Iraq spill over into other countries?
Iran's new foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, is on a mission of reassurance.
He has been telling his counterparts on the Arab side of the Gulf that they have no reason to fear Iran's intentions - or its new, more conservative government.
At the heart of his message is that Iran, like the Arabs, wants to see a stable Iraq, free of foreign interference.
Disintegration
But the Arab states, and for that matter Turkey, are not reassured.
They feel that the main beneficiary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and the rise of a Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, is Iran.
The sight of an Arab government dominated by Shia and Kurdish ministers has come as a shock
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, was recently in Washington warning darkly that violence and sectarianism in Iraq could lead to its disintegration.
He then delivered the same stark message to a meeting of Arab ministers - and was roundly rebuffed by Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabr.
Mr Jabr, a Shia with close connections to Iran, denounced the Saudi kingdom's treatment of its women and its Shia minority.
And for good measure he called the Saudi prince a "bedouin on a camel".
'Sunni order' challenged
Such verbal exchanges between Middle East neighbours are not, of course, unprecedented.
But behind the insults lurk serious issues.
Most of Iraq's neighbours were unhappy about the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
They had no great love of Saddam Hussein, but were worried about the regional consequences of the war.
In many ways, the fallout has been even worse than they had feared.
The Americans and their allies appear to be bogged down fighting an insurgency which could drag on for years.
While Sunni Arabs in the region have some sympathy for what could be called the nationalist element within the insurgency, they are troubled by the ultra-violent "jihadi" element.
They are afraid that the Arab militants who have entered Iraq to join the insurgency will one day go home to make trouble.
Moreover the Arab world has traditionally been run by a Sunni Arab elite.
The sight of an Arab government dominated by Shia and Kurdish ministers has come as a shock.
Some even see a new threat to the regional "Sunni order".
Iran 'ambiguous'
Such fears may be exaggerated.
The new power of the Iraqi Shia is certainly being watched with close interest by Shia elsewhere in the region.
But, so far, the effect has been to stimulate a kind of cultural renaissance, a heightened sense of Shia consciousness and identity.
Whether this will translate into greater political power - for example, for Saudi Arabia's Shia minority - is an open question.
As for Iran, its intentions in Iraq remain ambiguous.
Since the fall of Saddam, it has strengthened its religious, cultural and economic ties with Iraq's Shia majority.
It has cultivated close relations with all the main Shia political parties and their militias.
Less clear is whether it is actually fomenting anti-American violence, as some US officials have alleged.
Even if it is not, Iraq's neighbours believe that America has wittingly or unwittingly changed the regional balance of power in Iran's favour.
And they believe they, and the Americans, will suffer as a result.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/4313272.stm
Motley
10-11-2005, 11:27 PM
Just what we wanted, right? :rolleyes:
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/iraqi-police-sadr-militia-778704.jpg
Iraqi Patriots Celebrate their rise to power.
Long live Bush! Long live Sadr!
:add09:
Just what we wanted, right? :rolleyes:
Thread was started in Oct. of 2005
It was obvious then.. its obviously now.. and it'll be obvious 2 years from now, when nothing has changed, and I'm still posting here
Good editorial here from a history professor.. I agree with his assessment
Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
July 11, 2005 Monday Home Edition
Editorial; Pg. 7A;
WAR AND TERRORISM: Iran will emerge as clear victor in U.S. war in Iraq
ROBERT S. MCELVAINE
The London bombings will probably do for President Bush's poll ratings what his latest speech on Iraq could not: provide a temporary bump upward. But the key questions for the American people will not long remain obscured by renewed fears of terrorism: Is the Iraq war making us safer? Just what is the reason so many Americans are being killed and maimed?
Although Bush has long been despised in much of the world because of his war in Iraq, I have recently found there is one country in which our president is very popular, and the identity of that country can help us a great deal in answering those questions.
I was recently in South Korea, where I was making a presentation at the triennial Women's World's Congress. Some 90 nations were represented, but in talking there with people from many of those countries, I found only one where conference attendees said that Bush is popular: Iran.
Several conference participants from Iran told me that, among Iranians, Bush is now the most popular of all American presidents.
This information came as no surprise, but it was striking to have what seemed likely to be the case so directly confirmed, albeit only anecdotally.
The reason for Bush's popularity in Iran is not difficult to find. Although both he and the mullahs and new president who rule Iran are religious zealots who are always labeled "conservatives," that shared fundamentalism is not the basis for the American president's popularity in Tehran. Both are fundamentalists, but disagree on the particulars of the fundamentals they follow.
The reason for Bush's great approval in Iran is reminiscent of the view President Theodore Roosevelt took of a war that broke out in East Asia a century ago.
When Japan attacked the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in Manchuria in 1904, launching the Russo-Japanese War, Roosevelt wrote to his son and namesake, "Between ourselves, for you must not breathe it to anybody, I was thoroughly pleased with the Japanese victory, for Japan is playing our game ."
He meant that Russian dominance in Manchuria was keeping out the trade of other nations, particularly the United States, and that American interests were served by another nation checking Russia and opening up the region to free trade.
Roosevelt also saw that a prolonged war between two of the United States' rivals in East Asia would be especially beneficial to American interests because it would weaken both of them.
After waiting until a long war had exhausted both sides, Roosevelt iced the gift cake that Japan had baked for him in the form of its war against Russia by inviting diplomats from both belligerents to Portsmouth, N.H., to negotiate a settlement from which neither side would emerge as clearly victorious---and then was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, which had actually been directed toward advancing American interests.
Who, then, won the Russo-Japanese War a century ago? The United States.
In the current war of the early 21st century, Iran finds itself in a situation analogous to that of the United States in the war of the early 20th century between Japan and Russia.
By eliminating Saddam Hussein, Bush has removed the biggest counterweight to Iranian dominance of the region and accomplished for Iran --- at no cost whatsoever to that country --- what it was unable to do for itself in a long and horrible war in the 1980s.
On top of that, while fighting the Iranians' war for them, Bush has exhausted American military resources in the effort and has no credible military threat to use to pressure Iran.
When American troops leave Iraq, which eventually must happen, the result of the Bush war in Iraq will become apparent to all: Iran will emerge as the dominant power in the region.
So remember, in future years if someone asks who won the American war in Iraq, the correct answer will be: Iran.
[I]* Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss.
So well put, it deserves a bump
Fox News now agrees with what I was saying 6 years ago
Fox Analyst Ralph Peters On Iraq Withdrawal: "Iran Won"; "Iraq Matters -- Afghanistan Doesn't"; "Strategic Tragedy."
During the October 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday, co-host Clayton Morris invited Fox News analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on the air to comment on the withdrawal. Peters claimed the withdrawal meant that "Iran won" and later called it "strategic tragedy." From the broadcast:
MORRIS: President Obama announcing all U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq by the end of this year. Currently, there are 40,000 troops in the war-torn country. Democrats applauding the president's decision. But are we leaving too soon? Joining us now is the author of Lines of Fire and Fox News strategic analyst and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.
[...]
MORRIS: So was this decision to pull out of Iraq too soon?
PETERS: Well, it was tragic. And it wasn't really our decision. In a sense, we're being booted out. Not so much as by the Iraqis, but by Iran. We should make no mistake: Iran won. In fact, that's even unfair because we didn't even try to play Obama through the game. Now, President Obama deserves points for growing in the job. He did authorize killing bin Laden, al-Awlaki, more drone strikes. After some fumbling, he got Libya pretty much right. But this one is the big one. This is a Super Bowl. Iraq really matters. But Obama made a campaign promise, the left has had a blind spot about Iraq's importance because it was Bush's war. Therefore, it was a bad war. And Iraq matters -- Afghanistan doesn't. Iraq has the oil, it has the strategic location, location, location. Iran wants to move in to fill the power vacuum.
And what happened is straight -- is very straightforward. The Iranians, who play chess when we play checkers, knew that the one lever they could use to get us out of there was the issue of immunity for our troops if accused of a crime, for two reasons. One, they knew we can't agree to allow our troops be tried on spurious charges in Iraqi kangaroo courts; and two, they knew the Iraqi people are bitter about the atrocious behavior of the mercenaries we foolishly employed, the former Blackwater people and others. And so this was a ready-made issue. Tehran, Iran, used its proxies, Muqtada al-Sadr's people and others, in Baghdad to leverage this issue and Obama didn't engage. In fact, Obama has never engaged with Iraq, and we're losing and it's tragic.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201110240008
Thread was started in Oct. of 2005
It was obvious then.. its obviously now.. and it'll be obvious 2 years from now, when nothing has changed, and I'm still posting here
and i'll be obvious 2 years from now, when we see what happens
What Fox News failed to point out, however, is that Obama is simply carrying out the last minute deal that Bush signed with the Iraqi's in Dec. of 2008, on his way out of office.
When Bush was in Iraq to sign the deal, a reporter tossed his shoes at him, during a memorable incident.
Bush signs security deal in Iraq
Updated 12/15/2008 12:43 PM | Comment | Recommend
E-mail (http://wincoast.com/forum/#) | Print (http://wincoast.com/forum/#) | Reprints & Permissions (http://javascript<strong></strong>:RightslinkPopUp()) | http://images.usatoday.com/marketing/_images/rssbox.gif (http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/rss/rsstrans.aspx?ssts=news|world|iraq)
http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/12/14/bushiraqx.jpg (http://javascript<strong></strong>:;)
http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gif
http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/_inside/enlarge.gif (http://javascript<strong></strong>:;) Enlarge (http://javascript<strong></strong>:;)
By Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images
http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gif
President Bush and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani walk past an honor cordon Sunday as the president arrives at Salam Palace in an unannounced visit to Baghdad.
By Andrea Stone (http://wincoast.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=25), USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — President Bush signed a milestone security pact here Sunday during a surprise farewell visit to Iraq, followed by a trip today to Afghanistan to rally with troops.
In his fourth trip to Iraq — and the first to feature a formal welcoming ceremony — Bush said the Iraq war, which is in its sixth year, is not over. The president appeared with Iraq's prime minister and said more work is to be done.
During the news conference, a man threw his shoes at Bush and was dragged out by security officials. The president, who ducked to avoid being hit, joked about the incident. "All I can report is it is a size 10," he quipped and calmly took questions.
Bush met with Iraqi leaders for nearly two hours at the ornate presidential palace. He was to meet with U.S. troops and attend a signing ceremony with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the security agreement to draw down U.S. troops.
The agreement is "a reminder of our friendship and as a way forward to help the Iraqi people realize the blessings of a free society," Bush said after meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and two vice presidents. "The work hasn't been easy, but it has been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace."
The security agreement calls for U.S. combat forces to leave Iraqi cities by June 30. All American troops would be out by the end of 2011.
The deal allows both sides to renegotiate if violence, at its lowest level since the war began in 2003, returns. Saturday, the top U.S. commander here, Gen. Raymond Odierno, left wiggle room for a continued U.S. presence in urban areas after next summer, saying troops will remain as mentors and trainers at Iraqi security stations.
Bush then flew to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for a rally with U.S. and foreign troops. "Afghanistan is a dramatically different country than it was eight years ago," he said. "We are making hopeful gains."
President-elect Barack Obama, whose anti-war credentials helped fuel his candidacy, has said he hopes to scale down U.S. troop levels here to ramp up forces to fight insurgents in Afghanistan.
Talabani thanked Bush for "courageous leadership" and called him a "great friend" who "helped us to liberate our country."
Bush's visit was cloaked in secrecy. The White House had issued a public schedule showing Bush would attend a Christmas show in Washington Sunday. Instead, he was driven Saturday evening to Andrews Air Force Base to board Air Force One. On board were 13 journalists who were told of the trip Friday and allowed to inform only a boss and a spouse, and only in person.
The jet touched down at Baghdad International Airport 10½ hours later. There were traffic jams across the city as Bush's military helicopter swooped low over Baghdad. Gridlock was worst near Talabani's palace, where armored vehicles blocked intersections and soldiers stopped pedestrians as Bush's motorcade emerged into the blast-walled streets of Baghdad.
It was the first visit in which the president ventured beyond a military base or the heavily fortified Green Zone, but for only a few minutes to get to al-Maliki's office. He left the Karada neighborhood and drove over the 14th of July Bridge to al-Maliki's office in the Green Zone.
Bush's trip demonstrated the success of last year's military buildup in quelling violence. The security agreement he was signing "marks the re-emergence of Iraq as a completely sovereign state, equal with other sovereign states, for the first time since 2003," said Fred Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and an early advocate of the "surge" strategy.
"There continue to be failures and weaknesses even within the Iraqi government," he said, "but I think it's very clear that this is a huge moment in Middle Eastern history."
Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, says Bush's visit "is a final attempt to cement what he thinks is the cornerstone of what otherwise looks like a disastrous legacy: victory in Iraq, expressed" through the agreement. He said the United States still faces the challenge of withdrawing troops "through an exit strategy that does not leave chaos behind, which would present a major threat to stability in the region and therefore to U.S. strategic interests. On Iraq alone, this is a very flimsy legacy for Bush to take home."
While Bush received a warm welcome from Iraqi leaders, others were not as excited about his visit. Lawmaker Likaa' Al Yaseen, a supporter of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the security agreement, said Bush "came to confirm his complete occupation of Iraq and its people. … He is a failure. He "wants to give an impression that he didn't lose in Iraq and wants to polish his picture in front of his people, the Iraqis and the world."
Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of parliament, said the agreement "is a very strategic success," but Bush's decision to invade Iraq "will not go down very well in history. This war took a long time, it cost the American taxpayer and a lot of Iraqi people, and he didn't have a policy."
Contributing: Ali A. Nabhan; Peter Eisler in McLean, Va.; the Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-12-14-bush-iraq_N.htm
Mars S
10-24-2011, 03:35 PM
The shoe-thrower missed. Evidently the real news went by without you noticing. President Obama gets to pretend he "brought the troops" home all by himself...though curiously he couldn't seem to work out a relatively minor issue of immunity such as is offered to diplomats in US jurisdiction.
The shoe-thrower missed. Evidently the real news went by without you noticing. President Obama gets to pretend he "brought the troops" home all by himself...though curiously he couldn't seem to work out a relatively minor issue of immunity such as is offered to diplomats in US jurisdiction.
He said he'd bring them home and he's doing it
Turns out, all he had to do was follow the plan that Bush and Maliki agreed to in Dec. of 2008, after Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home and won.
VERITAS
10-25-2011, 04:34 PM
The shoe-thrower missed.
A sterling example of the "stopped clock" principle, that.
Great retrospective, Bman! Thank you for resurrecting the thread!
Mars S
10-25-2011, 04:37 PM
He said he'd bring them home and he's doing it
Turns out, all he had to do was follow the plan that Bush and Maliki agreed to in Dec. of 2008, after Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home and won.Evidently he couldn't manage to negotiate a mutually agreeable arrangement for US military remaining as advisors or...whatever. Still, its good to know our people won't be deploying to Iraq any more. Did he "campaign and win" on Iraq? I don't think so. I believe he won based on his not being McCain and promising "change" from Bush, in which, as all know, he failed utterly. Had the GOP chosen a more capable candidate- perhaps someone more vibrant and less a RINO, Obama would likely be a footnote. Sadly, such a candidate didn't exist, and McCain was inept, in poor condition and as much a machine politician as Obama. The voters have since discovered how poor the choice was.
But, I do have to say that the facts and NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/if-united-states-leaves-vacuum-in-iraq-disliked-iran-may-not-fill-it.html?_r=1&ref=iran) dispute your suggestion that Iran will be "stepping in" to whatever vacuum exists in Iraq after the US departs. Apparently, they made themselves VERY unpopular among Iraqis and Iraqis have little interest in accommodating their hegemonic fantasies. Leaving aside vertigo's fantasies about Moqtada Sadr having some authority, they are a trading partner and neighbor, but few Iraqis are unaware of just how vicious Iran has been towards Iraqis over the last 6 years. But I'll let the Times fill you in:
Surely, Iran has emerged empowered in Iraq over the last eight years, and it has a sympathetic Shiite-dominated government to show for it, as well as close ties to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr. But for what so far are rather obscure reasons — perhaps the struggling Iranian economy and mistrust toward Iranians that has been nurtured for centuries — it has been unable to extend its reach.
In fact, a host of countries led by Turkey — but not including the United States — have made the biggest inroads, much to the chagrin of people here in Najaf like the governor.
“Before 2003, 90 percent of Najaf people liked Iranians,” said the governor, Adnan al-Zurufi, who has lived in Chicago and Michigan and holds American citizenship. “Now, 90 percent hate them. Iran likes to take, not give.”
Near midnight, Mr. Zurufi held court at a cafe, his team of bodyguards standing sentry at the door, frisking patrons. Outside, a convoy of white sport utility vehicles waited, and nearby, down a crooked alleyway, thousands of visitors took in the nighttime serenity of the Imam Ali Shrine, one of the holiest sites for the Shiite diaspora, where millions of Iranians flock every year.
Mr. Zurufi’s comments cut against the grain of what is commonly understood about the influence of Iran in southern Iraq, where the two countries have a common religious bond — both are majority Shiite — but where nationality competes with sect.
A standard narrative has it that the Iraq war opened up a chessboard for the United States and Iran to tussle for power. One of the enduring outcomes has been an emboldened Iran that is politically close to Iraq’s leaders, many of whom escaped to Iran during Saddam Hussein’s government, and that is a large trading partner.
Yet the story is more nuanced, particularly in the Shiite-dominated south that became politically empowered after the American invasion upended Sunni rule. It has been other countries — most powerfully Turkey, but also China, Lebanon and Kuwait — that have cemented influence through economic ties.
The patterns were established soon after the American invasion. Shoddy Iranian goods — particularly low-quality cheese, fruit and yogurt — flooded markets in the south, often at exorbitant prices, said Mahdi Najat Nei, a diplomat who heads the Trade Promotion Organization of Iran office in Baghdad. This sullied Iran’s reputation, even though prices have since plummeted, creating an aversion to Iranian goods that lasts to this day, Mr. Nei said.
So who knows, Iran was never all that influential in Iraq before and there's little reason to think they will be now- other than those diehard BDS sufferers who'd like to imagine Iran can just waltz in. Of course they forget that many Iraqis despise Iran for their ruthless interference and violence.
Leonidas
10-25-2011, 07:04 PM
"but also China, Lebanon and Kuwait — that have cemented influence through economic ties."
No BLOOD for CHINESE OIL.
Good job Bush. Did your Chinese overlords demand you invade Iraq? Huh? Huh?
Of course not, Bush is just an idiot, However, at least the outcome of the Iraq war supports the conspiracy theory, which is more than I can say about the leftwing Anti-American ones back when Bush was president.
VERITAS
10-25-2011, 07:15 PM
He said he'd bring them home and he's doing it
Turns out, all he had to do was follow the plan that Bush and Maliki agreed to in Dec. of 2008, after Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home and won.
A "win-win"!
One wonders why the dead enders are bellywhinging about a promise being kept to the American people about which they clearly enthuse, whilst the Bush timetable is honoured to the precise day to which their boy had capitulated. Why can't everyone share credit?
Mars S
10-25-2011, 08:22 PM
A "win-win"!
One wonders why the dead enders are bellywhinging about a promise being kept to the American people about which they clearly enthuse, whilst the Bush timetable is honoured to the precise day to which their boy had capitulated. Why can't everyone share credit?translation: HOORAY!! SADDAM WON!
But, I do have to say that the facts and NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/if-united-states-leaves-vacuum-in-iraq-disliked-iran-may-not-fill-it.html?_r=1&ref=iran) dispute your suggestion that Iran will be "stepping in" to whatever vacuum exists in Iraq after the US departs. Apparently, they made themselves VERY unpopular among Iraqis and Iraqis have little interest in accommodating their hegemonic fantasies. Leaving aside vertigo's fantasies about Moqtada Sadr having some authority, they are a trading partner and neighbor, but few Iraqis are unaware of just how vicious Iran has been towards Iraqis over the last 6 years. But I'll let the Times fill you in:
So who knows, Iran was never all that influential in Iraq before and there's little reason to think they will be now- other than those diehard BDS sufferers who'd like to imagine Iran can just waltz in. Of course they forget that many Iraqis despise Iran for their ruthless interference and violence.
Glad to hear it. Let's hope you're correct!
Mars S
10-26-2011, 05:25 AM
A sterling example of the "stopped clock" principle, that.Says the "stopped clock" who keeps insisting that Iraq was a failure against all the evidence.
VERITAS
10-26-2011, 08:31 AM
HOORAY!! SADDAM WON!
Saddam didn't win, Silly. FoxNews said that Iran won.
That a Presidential promise to the American people is being kept, and another President's withdrawal concession is being honoured is the "win-win" that is being applauded.
Mars S
10-26-2011, 03:47 PM
Saddam didn't win, Silly. FoxNews said that Iran won.
That a Presidential promise to the American people is being kept, and another President's withdrawal concession is being honoured is the "win-win" that is being applauded.You're lying again. FOXnews didn't say that. A paid quasi-pundit/novelist said it and he's not there. As for the president being "honored", that too is false. McClatchy (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Iraq+troop+talks+faltered+Obama+didn+pick+phone/5605659/story.html) is reporting that both the prez and veep have been largely absent and trying to not become involved in the Iraq issue. They've been effectively ignoring the breakdown of talks. I don't know about you, but a guy who passed himself off as post-partisan and the man to repair all the good stuff that Bush did, can't seem to find his ass with both hands. It's sad to say that Obama is screwing up even the SOFA even though all he had to do was follow the plan. To be fair, I have to point out that he hasn't been able to get Iran to take over as you keep insisting they have. And, for some peculiar reason Moqtada Sadr STILL isn't in charge. Maybe he's just too busy studying up for his future as a anti-American cleric.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.