0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:29 am
A reminder. Are we winning or losing the War on Terror in Iraq? According to security experts we are losing.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 07:48 am
Clerics Across Iraq Call for End to Sectarian Killing


Quote:


Yea, this is something to be proud of and of course it is all the fault of the democratic nay sayers. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 08:27 pm
revel wrote:
BBB, I think partition is the only answer to this nightmare of Iraq. It might not fix it, but it's the only the solution that I can see that has a chance.

Partition is ok if each Iraqi citizen (about 28 million of them--men women and children) receives an equal share of oil stock in the Iraqi oil industry, and thereby an equal share of the oil revenue from the Iraqi oil industry.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 08:34 pm
xingu wrote:
A reminder. Are we winning or losing the War on Terror in Iraq? According to security experts we are losing
....

Let's agree that our not winning in Iraq is equivalent to losing in Iraq. Let's agree that the status quo, if there is one cannot be tolerated.

Now if that is settled, do you advise that we take future action to continue to try to win, or do we take future action that guarantees we lose?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 06:32 am
What is winning?

Installing a Shiite controlled government friendly to Iran? That's what's in place now.

Breaking Iraq up into three separate countries?

That's what many consider the best option to end the violence.

If you think we're going to defeat the insurgence in Iraq your sadly wrong. As long as Americans are in that country they will continue to fight. If you don't believe that would American's do any less if they were invaded by a foreign power with a foreign religion? As long as the Sunnis feel they are being screwed by the Shiites they will fight. America's presence and heavy-handed military action does not make things better.

Cowboy conservatives think kicking ass will make people grovel to them. They're finding out that it doesn't work. Kicking ass in someone else's country makes them angrier. They fight harder. They're not intimidated by our power. We found that out in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cowboy machoism does nothing more then get Americans killed and cost us a hell of a lot of money. Even after all these failures we still see dumb cowboy conservatives telling us we should attack Syria and Iran. With dumb asses like Bush in the White House its no wonder that Iran would like to develop a nuclear weapon. I would if I was Iran. Bush didn't give Iran much choice.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 11:37 am
xingu wrote:
What is winning?
...

I think winning is the Iraqis succeed in securing their democracy. Perhaps, you think winning is something else. If so, what?

But xingu, you didn't respond to what I actually posted.

I'll try again.
ican711nm wrote:
Let's agree that our not winning in Iraq is equivalent to losing in Iraq. Let's agree that the status quo, if there is one cannot be tolerated.

Now if that is settled, do you advise that we take future action to continue to try to win, or do we take future action that guarantees we lose?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2006 07:57 pm
ican wrote:

<<I think winning is the Iraqis succeed in securing their democracy. Perhaps, you think winning is something else. If so, what?>>

What if the government that emerges down the line is not a democracy? Does that mean the Iraqis have not "succeeded"? Or does it mean that we have not succeeded? If we do not manage to impose a democracy on the Iraqis, what does that say about our policies? Were we wrongly intentioned or could we not figure out how to fit a round peg into a square hole?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 07:05 am
ican wrote:
I think winning is the Iraqis succeed in securing their democracy. Perhaps, you think winning is something else. If so, what?

Alright, picture this. Iraq is a democracy (already done; they elected their government). The government is a Shiite predominate government. According to Bush the friends of our enemies are our enemies. Iran is our enemy. Israel is our friend. The Iraqi government is Iran's friend. The Iraqi government is Hezbollah's friend. The Iraqi government is not Israel's friend. The Iraqi government is a friend to our enemies. Therefore, according to Bush, whom if you remember said you are either with us or against us, the Iraqi government qualifies as being our enemy. Americans are dying in Iraq, not for America, but to secure the Iraqi government, our enemy, or a friend of our enemies.

So winning means that we must kill and destroy the insurgents, a group fighting the enemies of our government, the Shiite government in Iraq. If this sounds confusing to you then welcome aboard. It's confusing to me. But that's what's happening today in Iraq. This is what Bush got us into and he doesn't know how to get out. I don't even know if he wants out.

So what should we do? Get out. Set a deadline, say one year. Start withdrawing troops. Make the Iraqis solve their own problems. We can't solve them because our presence makes the problem worse. Treat the Iraqis in the same manner conservatives say they want to treat the unemployed in this country. You have one year to get a job and after that your on your own. We will no longer provide you with assistance.

With us out of the picture it will be between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen. They will have to fight, talk, or compromise. But whatever they do they have to do it. It has to be their decision, their war or their peace. We are outsiders and we have no business being there. We have to get out and soon.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 07:09 am
Why do you believe that the new Iraqi government id friendly with Iran?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 07:32 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why do you believe that the new Iraqi government id friendly with Iran?


You don't know? Don't you keep up with the news? Don't you know the history of the current Prime minister of Iraq and his relationship with Hezbollah? Don't you know the relationship of the two parties of the United Iraqi Alliance with Iran? Don't you know of the aid Iran is giving Iraq?

Research it. I don't have the luxury of spending a lot of time on this site as the more profession A2Ker's do. I thought I would when I retired but I have more to do now than when I was working. I sometimes think I spend too much time on this site and it pisses me off. This damn site is addictive.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 07:37 am
To be successful, Iraq can not be seen as a pawn of the US. That does not mean a close relationship with Iran. I doubt the people of either country will ever forget the conflict between them, nor do I see anything other than normal diplomatic ties between either country.

Iran is a big power-broker in the middle east, but I believe you are reading more into the relationship than exists.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 07:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why do you believe that the new Iraqi government id friendly with Iran?


Iran, Iraq emphasize expansion of ties

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 09:44 am
Kara wrote:
ican wrote:

<<I>>

What if the government that emerges down the line is not a democracy? Does that mean the Iraqis have not "succeeded"? Or does it mean that we have not succeeded? If we do not manage to impose a democracy on the Iraqis, what does that say about our policies? Were we wrongly intentioned or could we not figure out how to fit a round peg into a square hole?

I think the USA winning in Iraq is the Iraqis succeed in securing their democracy.

Perhaps, you think the USA winning in Iraq is something else. If so, what?

Only after you tell me what you think the USA winning in Iraq is, can we have a sensible debate over which thinking is better in some respect or respects than the other.

I think it impossible for me to defend my thinking against yours if I don't know what your thinking is.

So, what do you think the USA winning in Iraq is?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 10:12 am
xingu wrote:
ican wrote:
I think winning is the Iraqis succeed in securing their democracy. Perhaps, you think winning is something else. If so, what?

...
Iraq is a democracy (already done; they elected their government). The government is a Shiite predominate government.
...
So what should we do? Get out. Set a deadline, say one year. Start withdrawing troops. Make the Iraqis solve their own problems. We can't solve them because our presence makes the problem worse. Treat the Iraqis in the same manner conservatives say they want to treat the unemployed in this country. You have one year to get a job and after that your on your own. We will no longer provide you with assistance.

With us out of the picture it will be between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen. They will have to fight, talk, or compromise. But whatever they do they have to do it. It has to be their decision, their war or their peace. We are outsiders and we have no business being there. We have to get out and soon.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I infer from these remarks excerpted above that you think the USA has almost won already and will ensure itself a win only if the USA does: "Set a deadline, say one year. Start withdrawing troops. Make the Iraqis solve their own problems."

OK!

Now I want to think about your proposal in terms of what its likely consequences are to the achievement of another objective: maintenance of the security of the USA's democracy. Winning in Iraq the way you propose may or may not be better for securing the USA's democracy than the USA remaining in Iraq and persisting in its attempt to make the Iraqi government become what is better for securing the USA's democracy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 02:51 pm
Congress gave twenty-three reasons supporting its resolution of October 16, 2002. Thirteen of those twenty-three reasons were subsequently proven true. The ten not subsequently proven true were the ones that claimed Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD. Two of the thirteen reasons subsequently proven true are stated as Whereases in the following.

Congress, Friday, Wednesday, October 16, 2002 wrote:

...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


I think each of these two reasons is sufficient justification for our invasion of Iraq. Our primary objective in invading Iraq was elimination of the threat of terrorist organizations growing in Iraq to the point where in future they would mount attacks against Americans.

I think the USA Plan A of successfully establishing a free democracy in Iraq is one way, but not the only way, to reduce the probability that terrorist organizations will develop in Iraq to the point of training 10,000 to 20,000 fighters like al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan in the five years 1996 to 2001. However, the USA effort establishing such a democracy in Iraq may not succeed. The USA may require a Plan B to reduce the probability that terrorist organizations, like the former one in Afghanistan, will develop in Iraq.

Plan B may involve nothing more than removing any future Iraqi government that permits terrorist organizations, like the former one in Afghanistan, to develop in Iraq. Probably several such removals--removal of Saddam's regime took about a month with a minimum of USA casualties--may be required before the Iraqi people establish a government that will not permit terrorist organizations, like the former one in Afghanistan, to develop in Iraq. In any case, as xingu recommended, after a specified time, discontinue efforts on the part of the USA to help Iraq develop an acceptable government, but do not abandon our efforts to eliminate terrorist organizations and their sanctuaries in Iraq or anywhere else.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 05:54 am
ican wrote:
Now I want to think about your proposal in terms of what its likely consequences are to the achievement of another objective: maintenance of the security of the USA's democracy. Winning in Iraq the way you propose may or may not be better for securing the USA's democracy than the USA remaining in Iraq and persisting in its attempt to make the Iraqi government become what is better for securing the USA's democracy.

The maintenance of our security will depend on our behavior toward other nations and cultures. If we insist on imposing our system and beliefs on others through force we will always have a problem with security. If we, because of our power, insist our national interest are more important than other smaller countries national interest we will have a problem with security. If we can't respect other smaller nations and insist on treating them with the contempt that a bully would treat a weakling in a schoolyard, we will have a problem with security.

We may be able to defeat any standing army in this world but we can't defeat an insurgence unless we degrade ourselves and come down to the level of a Saddam Hussein. This nation calls itself a Christian nation. But our government, Republican and Democrat, have not yet learned to have this government practice the most important and universal rule in the Bible; the Golden Rule. As long as we treat others with contempt and disrespect we will get that in return. What is happening to us today is mainly the fault of our arrogance and mistreatment of other smaller countries much like the European nations during the colonial times. No one is fighting us because they hate our democracy; they're fighting us because they hate our foreign policy.

You reap what you sow.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 06:02 am
Smoe more on the relationship between Iraq and Iran written by Juan Cole.

Quote:
The Iraq war is over, and the winner is... Iran
Hamstrung by the Iraq debacle, all Bush can do is gnash his teeth as the hated mullahs in Iran cozy up to their co-religionists in Iraq.
By Juan Cole
07/21/05

Iraq's new government has been trumpeted by the Bush administration as a close friend and a model for democracy in the region. In contrast, Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil and dismisses its elections and government as illegitimate. So the Bush administration cannot have been filled with joy when Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and eight high-powered cabinet ministers paid an extremely friendly visit to Tehran this week.

The two governments went into a tizzy of wheeling and dealing of a sort not seen since Texas oil millionaires found out about Saudi Arabia. Oil pipelines, port access, pilgrimage, trade, security, military assistance, were all on the table in Tehran. All the sorts of contracts and deals that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney had imagined for Halliburton, and that the Pentagon neoconservatives had hoped for Israel, were heading instead due east.

Jaafari's visit was a blow to the Bush administration's strategic vision, but a sweet triumph for political Shiism. In the dark days of 1982, Tehran was swarming with Iraqi Shiite expatriates who had been forced to flee Saddam Hussein's death decree against them. They had been forced abroad, to a country with which Iraq was then at war. Ayatollah Khomeini, the newly installed theocrat of Iran, pressured the expatriates to form an umbrella organization, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which he hoped would eventually take over Iraq. Among its members were Jaafari and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. On Jan. 30, 2005, Khomeini's dream finally came true, courtesy of the Bush administration, when the Supreme Council and the Dawa Party won the Iraqi elections.

Jaafari, a Dawa Party activist working for an Islamic republic, had been in exile in Tehran from 1980 to 1989. A physician trained at Mosul, the reserved and somewhat inarticulate Jaafari studied Shiite law and theology as an auditor at the seminaries of Qom. His party, Dawa, was briefly part of SCIRI but in 1984 split with it to maintain its autonomy.

Iraq has a Shiite Muslim majority of some 62 percent. Iran's Shiite majority is thought to be closer to 90 percent. The Shiites of the two countries have had a special relationship for over a millennium. Saddam had sealed the border for more than two decades, but throughout centuries, tens of thousands of Iranians have come on pilgrimage to the holy Shiite shrines of Najaf and Karbala every year. Iraqis likewise go to Iran for pilgrimage, study and trade. Although neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz maintained before the Iraq war that Iraqis are more secular and less interested in an Islamic state than Iranians, in fact the ideas of Khomeini had had a deep impact among Iraqi Shiites. When they could vote in January earlier this year, they put the Khomeini-influenced Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq in control of seven of the nine southern provinces, along with Baghdad itself.

It was not only history that brought Jaafari to the foothills of the Alborz mountains. The Iraqi prime minister was attempting to break out of the box into which his government has been stuffed by the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. Jaafari's government does not control the center-north or west of the country and cannot pump much petroleum from Kirkuk because of oil sabotage. Trucking to Jordan is often difficult. The Jaafari government depends heavily on the Rumaila oil field in the south, but lacks refining capability. Iraq lacks a deep water port on the Gulf and needs to replace inland "ports" like Amman because of poor security. An initiative toward the east could resolve many of these problems, strengthening the Shiites against the Sunni guerrillas economically and militarily and so saving the new government.

The last time Iran and Iraq had really warm relations was the mid-1950s. Iraq then had a British-installed constitutional monarchy, and Prime Minister Nuri as-Said was fanatically pro-Western. The CIA had put Mohammad Reza Shah back on the throne in 1953, deposing the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh (who had angered the United States when he nationalized the Iranian oil industry). In 1955 Said and the shah both signed on to the Baghdad Pact, a U.S.-sponsored security agreement against the Soviet Union and Arab nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. The pact proved ill-fated, however. A popular revolution overthrew the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, and Nuri's corpse was dragged in the street. Another popular revolution overthrew the shah in 1979. In 1980-1988, Iran-Iraq relations reached their nadir, as Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards slugged it out on battlefields of a dreary horror not seen since World War I. Jaafari's visit was designed to erase the bitter legacies of that war.

Iraq's Eastern Policy does not come without at least symbolic costs. On Saturday, Jaafari made a ceremonial visit to the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini, on which he laid a wreath. In a meeting with Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei on Monday, according to the Tehran Times, Jaafari "called the late Imam Khomeini the key to the victory of the Islamic Revolution, adding, 'We hope to eliminate the dark pages Saddam caused in Iran-Iraq ties and open a new chapter in brotherly ties between the two nations.'" The American right just about had a heart attack at the possibility (later shown false) that newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been among the militants who took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979. But the hostage takers had been blessed by Khomeini himself, to whom Jaafari was paying compliments.

When Jaafari met the head of the Iranian judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, on Tuesday, the two discussed expanding judicial cooperation between the two countries. Shahrudi said that cooperation with Iran's Draconian "justice system" has had a positive impact on other Muslim countries. He called for Iraq to coordinate with something called the "Islamic Human Rights Organization" -- an Orwellian phrase in dictatorial Iran, a state that tortures political prisoners and engages in other acts of brutality. And he urged the Iraqi government to put greater reliance on "popular forces" (local and national Shiite militias) in establishing security.

Jaafari was probably only indulging his clerical host, but his Dawa Party certainly does hope to have Islamic law play a greater role in Iraqi society. The New York Times revealed on Wednesday that the new draft of the Iraqi constitution will put personal status matters, many of them affecting women, under religious courts.

For his polite forbearance as his Iranian hosts boasted of the superiority of their Islamic government and grumbled about all those trouble-making American troops in the Iraqi countryside, Jaafari was richly rewarded. Iran offered to pay for three pipelines that would stretch across the southern border of the two countries. Iraq will ship 150,000 barrels a day of light crude to Iran to be refined, and Iran will ship back processed petroleum, kerosene and gasoline. The plan could be operational within a year, according to Petroleum Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, whose father is a prominent Shiite cleric.

In addition, Iran will supply electricity. Iran will sell Iraq 200,000 tons of wheat. Iran is offering Iraq use of its ports to transship goods to Iraq. Iran is offering a billion dollars in foreign aid. Iran will step up cooperation in policing the borders of the two countries. Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei has called for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Iraq. In fact, Iran is offering so much for so little that it looks an awful lot like influence peddling.

The previous week, Defense Minister Saadoun Dulaimi had made a preparatory trip to Tehran, exploring the possibility of military cooperation between the two countries. At one point it even seemed that the two had reached an agreement that Iran would help train Iraqi troops. One can only imagine that Washington went ballistic and applied enormous pressure on Jaafari to back off this plan. The Iraqi government abandoned it, on the grounds that an international agreement had already specified that out-of-country training of Iraqi troops in the region should be done in Jordan. But the Iraqi government did give Tehran assurances that they would not allow Iraqi territory to be used in any attack on Iran -- presumably a reference to the United States.

Iranian leaders pressed Jaafari on the continued presence in Iraq of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist organization with ties to the Pentagon, elements in the Israeli lobby, and members of the U.S. Congress and Senate. Saddam had used the MEK to foment trouble for Iran. Jaafari promised that they had been disarmed and would not be allowed to conduct terrorist raids from Iraqi soil.

Not surprisingly, the warming relations between Tehran and Baghdad have greatly alarmed Iraq's Sunni Muslims. They know that Iranian offers of help in training Iraqi security officers, and Iranian professions of support for a united, peaceful Iraq are code for the suppression by Shiite troops and militias of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. Many Iraqi Sunnis believe that the Sunni Arabs are the true majority, but that millions of illegal Iranian emigrants masquerading as Iraqi Shiites have flooded into the country, skewing vote totals in the recent elections. This belief, for all its irrationality, makes them especially suspicious of Shiite politicians cozying up to the ayatollahs in Tehran. A recent BBC documentary reported that the Sunnis of Fallujah despise Iraqi Shiites even more than they do the Americans, in part because they code them as Persians (in fact they are Arabs).

Although officials in Washington felt constrained to issue polite assurances that they want good relations between Iraq and Iran, the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and hawks in the Bush administration all have a grudge against Iran, and would as soon overthrow the mullahs as spit at them. But thanks to the Iraq debacle, that is no longer a viable option. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack revealed the true amount of influence Washington has in Baghdad when he admitted that the Bush administration has not "had a chance" to discuss Jaafari's trip to Iran with the prime minister.

The Iranians hold a powerful hand in the Iraqi poker game. They have geopolitical advantages, are flush with petroleum profits because of the high price of oil, and have much to offer their new Shiite Iraqi partners. Their long alliance with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani gives them Kurdish support as well. Bush's invasion removed the most powerful and dangerous regional enemy of Iran, Saddam Hussein, from power. In its aftermath, the religious Shiites came to power at the ballot box in Iraq, bestowing on Tehran firm allies in Baghdad for the first time since the 1950s. And in a historic irony, Iran's most dangerous enemy of all, the United States, invaded Iran's neighbor with an eye to eventually toppling the Tehran regime -- but succeeded only in defeating itself.

The ongoing chaos in Iraq has made it impossible for Bush administration hawks to carry out their long-held dream of overthrowing the Iranian regime, or even of forcing it to end its nuclear ambitions. (The Iranian nuclear research program will almost certainly continue, since the Iranians are bright enough to see what happened to the one member of the "axis of evil" that did not have an active nuclear weapons program.) The United States lacks the troops, but perhaps even more critically, it is now dependent on Iran to help it deal with a vicious guerrilla war that it cannot win. In the Middle East, the twists and turns of history tend to make strange bedfellows -- something the neocons, whose breathtaking ignorance of the region helped bring us to this place, are now learning to their dismay.

More than two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, it is difficult to see what real benefits have accrued to the United States from the Iraq war, though a handful of corporations have benefited marginally. In contrast, Iran is the big winner. The Shiites of Iraq increasingly realize they need Iranian backing to defeat the Sunni guerrillas and put the Iraqi economy right, a task the Americans have proved unable to accomplish. And Iran will still be Iraq's neighbor long after the fickle American political class has switched its focus to some other global hot spot.

Juan Cole is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and the author of "Sacred Space and Holy War" (IB Tauris, 2002).
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 06:11 am
Some information on the current Prime Minister of Iraq and the Dawa Party.

Quote:
The Islamic Dawa Party or Islamic Call Party is, historically, a militant Shiite Islamic group and, presently, an Iraqi political party. Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are two of the main parties in the religious-Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, which won a plurality of seats in both the provisional January 2005 Iraqi election and the longer-term December 2005 election. The party is led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a doctor, who served as the Prime Minister of Iraq in the Iraqi Transitional Government from 2005 until May 20, 2006. The party's deputy leader, Nouri al-Maliki, is the current Prime Minister of Iraq.


Quote:
During the Iran-Iraq War, al-Dawa also committed violent acts against both Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq and Western targets. It was widely viewed in the West as a terrorist organization in this period. It attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz, Hussein's longtime loyalist, in 1980; and attempted to assassinate Hussein himself in 1982 and 1987. In 1983 it simultaneously bombed the American and French embassies in Kuwait and several other domestic and foreign targets in Kuwait. This led to the imprisonment of the "Kuwait 17" in Kuwait, 12 of which were Iraqis in al-Dawa[1]. The bombing of the American embassy was an early instance of suicide bombing in the Middle East, following the examples that year of Hezbollah's bombings of the American Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon. [2]

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 06:15 am
This is a list of parties in the United Iraqi Alliance. This party holds 128 of the 275 seats in Iraq's new parliment. That's 10 short of a majority.

Quote:
Al-Sadr Bloc
Al-Shabak Democratic Grouping
Badr Organisation
Centre Grouping Party
Community of Justice
Hezbollah Movement in Iraq
Iraqi Democrats Movement
Islamic Daawa Party
Islamic Daawa Party - Iraq Organisation
Islamic Master of the Martyrs Movement
Islamic Union for Iraqi Turkomans
Islamic Virtue Party
Justice and Equality Grouping
Malhan Al Mukatir
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
The Free of Iraq
Turkoman Loyalty Movement

SOURCE

Noticed that one of them, a small party, is the Hezbollah Movement in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 04:38 pm
Good posts, Xingu. I just finished reading Tom Rick's book on Iraq, "Fiasco". Have you read it? We can't get out according to him. Because of our early failures in the war, we are doomed to stay for a very long time. The closing chapters are gloomy as hell about what would happen if we pick up and leave. He gives several cogent scenarios and I am convinced he is right. Bush has gotten us into a morass that the military warned about and were proved correct. I can remember discussing this on Able before we went in about the tribal factions centuries old that would be present. Now we are weakened with an Iran that is very aware with a nuclear capability to come. Sigh....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/20/2025 at 11:41:20